Distinguishing Propositional and Action Commitment in Agent Communication

Our goal is to extend agent communication languages for persuasion dialogues. We distinguish action commitments from propositional commitments, because both limit future moves, but an action commitment is fulfilled when the hearer believes that the action is performed, whereas a propositional commitment is fulfilled only when the hearer concedes to the proposition – where concessions are the absence of a belief to the contrary, and prevent further challenges. Using a common model for both kind of commitments and a role-based semantics of agent communication languages, we show how propositional commitments are related to public beliefs and action commitments to public goals.

[1]  Guido Boella,et al.  ACL Semantics Between Social Commitments and Mental Attitudes , 2006, AC.

[2]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Role-assignment in open agent societies , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[3]  J. Sadock.  Speech acts , 2007 .

[4]  Guido Boella,et al.  A synthesis between mental attitudes and social commitments in agent communication languages , 2005, IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology.

[5]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Semantic Issues in the Verification of Agent Communication Languages , 2000, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[6]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Commitments: From Individual Intentions to Groups and Organizations , 1995, ICMAS.

[7]  Marco Guerini,et al.  Promises and Threats in Persuasion , 2006 .

[8]  Jacques Ferber,et al.  From Agents to Organizations: An Organizational View of Multi-agent Systems , 2003, AOSE.

[9]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning , 1995 .

[10]  Guido Boella,et al.  Role-based semantics for agent communication: embedding of the 'mental attitudes' and 'social commitments' semantics , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[11]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  Modelling Flexible Social Commitments and Their Enforcement , 2004, ESAW.

[12]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Constructing Induction Rules for Deductive Synthesis Proofs , 2006, CLASE.

[13]  Munindar P. Singh.  A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages , 2000, Issues in Agent Communication.

[14]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[16]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  The cognitive coherence approach for agent communication pragmatics , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[17]  Jim D. Mackenzie,et al.  Question-begging in non-cumulative systems , 1979, J. Philos. Log..

[18]  Dominique Longin,et al.  A Logical Framework for Grounding-based Dialogue Analysis , 2006, LCMAS.

[19]  O. Oha.  Fallacies , 2005 .

[20]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Rodger Kibble,et al.  Speech acts, commitment and multi-agent communication , 2006, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[22]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  A Modal Semantics for an Argumentation-Based Pragmatics for Agent Communication , 2004, ArgMAS.

[23]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Artificial Intelligence , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[24]  Marco Colombetti,et al.  A COMMITMENT-BASED APPROACH TO AGENT COMMUNICATION , 2004, Appl. Artif. Intell..