Agreeing What to Do

When deliberating about what to do, an autonomous agent must generate and consider the relative pros and cons of the different options. The situation becomes even more complicated when an agent is involved in a joint deliberation, as each agent will have its own preferred outcome which may change as new information is received from the other agents involved in the deliberation. We present an argumentation-based dialogue system that allows agents to come to an agreement on how to act in order to achieve a joint goal. The dialogue strategy that we define ensures that any agreement reached is acceptable to each agent, but does not necessarily demand that the agents resolve or share their differing preferences. We give properties of our system and discuss possible extensions. ACM Category: I.2.11 Multiagent systems. General terms: Theory.

[1]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Audiences in argumentation frameworks , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems , 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[3]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  An inquiry dialogue system , 2008, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[4]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the Relevance of Utterances in Formal Inter-agent Dialogues , 2007, ArgMAS.

[5]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Argumentation-based dialogues for deliberation , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[6]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[7]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Mechanism design for abstract argumentation , 2008, AAMAS.

[8]  Chris Reed,et al.  Strategic Argumentation in Rigorous Persuasion Dialogue , 2009, ArgMAS.

[9]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract , 2005, J. Appl. Log..

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[12]  DungPhan Minh.  On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games , 1995 .

[13]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation , 2005, J. Log. Comput..

[14]  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..

[15]  Elizabeth Black,et al.  Dialogues that account for different perspectives in collaborative argumentation , 2009, AAMAS.

[16]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[17]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Towards a Testbed for Multi-party Dialogues , 2003, Workshop on Agent Communication Languages.

[18]  Peter McBurney,et al.  The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue , 2007, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[19]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Personality-Based Practical Reasoning , 2009, ArgMAS.