Agent communication pragmatics: the cognitive coherence approach

Different approaches have investigated the syntax and semantics of agent communication languages. However, these approaches have not indicated how agents should dynamically use communications. Instead of filling this pragmatics gap, most approaches have mainly focused on the 'structure' of dialogues even though developers are more interested in agents' capabilities of having 'useful' automated conversations with respect to their goals rather than in their abilities to structure dialogues. This led us to work on a theory of the use of conversations between agents. In this paper, we propose a pragmatics theory which extends and adapts the cognitive dissonance theory (a major theory of social psychology) to multi-agent systems by unifying it with the theory of coherence in thought and action that issues from computational philosophy of mind. Precisely, we show how this theory allows us to provide generic conceptual tools for the automation of both agent communicational behavior and attitude change processes. This new motivational model is formulated in terms of constraints and elements of cognition and allows us to define cognitive incoherences and dialogue utility measures. We show how these measures could be used to solve common problems and answer some critical questions concerning agent communication frameworks use. Finally, our exploration in applying the cognitive coherence pragmatics theory as a new communication layer over classical BDI agents is presented. It relies on our dialogue games based agent communication language (DIAGAL) and our dialogue games simulator toolbox (DGS). The resulting framework provides the necessary theoretical and practical elements for implementing our theory. In doing so, it brings in a general scheme for automatizing agents' communicational behavior as it is exemplified in this article.

[1]  J. Brehm,et al.  Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance , 1962 .

[2]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice , 1995, ICMAS.

[3]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[4]  Munindar P. Singh Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles , 1998, Computer.

[5]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[6]  W. Crano,et al.  Attitudes and persuasion. , 2006, Annual review of psychology.

[7]  Joseph Bates,et al.  The role of emotion in believable agents , 1994, CACM.

[8]  E. Harmon-Jones,et al.  Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. , 1999 .

[9]  P. Thagard,et al.  Coherence in Thought and Action , 2000 .

[10]  Chris Reed,et al.  Dialogue frames in agent communication , 1998, Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No.98EX160).

[11]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  Commitment-based and dialogue-game-based protocols: new trends in agent communication languages , 2002, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

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

[13]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  DIAGAL: A Tool for Analyzing and Modelling Commitment-Based Dialogues between Agents , 2003, Canadian Conference on AI.

[14]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  Specification of the KQML Agent-Communication Language , 1993 .

[15]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Collective Intentions and Actions , 2003 .

[17]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Intentions in Communication. , 1992 .

[18]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction , 2019, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  What is intention , 1987 .

[20]  Nicolas Maudet Modéliser les conventions des interactions langagières : la contribution des jeux de dialogue , 2001 .

[21]  Jean-Louis Dessalles,et al.  The Interplay of Desire and Necessity in Dialogue , 1998 .

[22]  Marie-Laure Potet Spécifications et développements structurés dans la méthode B , 2003, Tech. Sci. Informatiques.

[23]  Barbara Messing,et al.  An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems , 2002, Künstliche Intell..

[24]  Roberto A. Flores,et al.  Bringing Coherence to Agent Conversations , 2001, AOSE.

[25]  Joris Hulstijn,et al.  Dialogue Models for Inquiry and Transaction , 2000 .

[26]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Reasoning about commitments and penalties for coordination between autonomous agents , 2001, AGENTS '01.

[27]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  DIAGAL: A Generic ACL for Open Systems , 2004, ESAW.

[28]  Dialogue between non-task oriented agents , 2003 .

[29]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  An Abstract Architecture for Rational Agents , 1992, KR.

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

[31]  J. Searle Consciousness and Language: Collective Intentions and Actions , 2002 .

[32]  James F. Allen Natural language understanding , 1987, Bejnamin/Cummings series in computer science.

[33]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Introduction to multiagent systems , 2001 .

[34]  Marco Colombetti,et al.  Commitment-based semantics for Agent Communication Languages , 2000 .

[35]  Antinus Nijholt,et al.  Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue , 1998 .

[36]  Daniel Vanderveken,et al.  Foundations of Illocutionary Logic , 1985 .

[37]  Jean-Paul Sansonnet,et al.  Agents informationnels pour l'étude expérimentale de concepts de socio-cognition Vers une approche agent de la socio-informatique , 2003, Tech. Sci. Informatiques.

[38]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Rational interaction as the basis for communication , 2003 .

[39]  David R Traum,et al.  Towards a Computational Theory of Grounding in Natural Language Conversation , 1991 .

[40]  Patrick Brézillon,et al.  Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence , 1999 .

[41]  O. Oha Fallacies , 2005 .

[42]  Nicolas Maudet Negotiating Dialogue Games , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[43]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[44]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

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

[46]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  Cohérence et conversations entre agents: vers un modèle basé sur la consonance cognitive , 2002, JFSMA.

[47]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  Negotiation protocols and dialogue games , 2001, AGENTS '01.

[48]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Agent-Oriented Software Engineering II , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

[50]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Issues in Agent Communication , 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[51]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Issues in Agent Communication: An Introduction , 2000, Issues in Agent Communication.

[52]  J. Greenstone Relevance , 2007 .

[53]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  An Analysis of Cooperation and Conflict in Students’ Collaborative Explanations for Phenomena in Mechanics , 1992 .

[54]  Michael Rovatsos,et al.  Capturing agent autonomy in roles and XML , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[55]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Agent Theory for Team Formation by Dialogue , 2000, ATAL.

[56]  W. A. Plice Automatic Analog Testing - 1979 Style , 1979, Computer.

[57]  Philippe Pasquier,et al.  Engagements , intentions et jeux de dialogue , 2022 .

[58]  Robert T. Craig,et al.  Conversational coherence : form, structure, and strategy , 1983 .

[59]  R. A. Wicklund,et al.  Perspectives on cognitive dissonance , 1976 .

[60]  Laurent Vongkasern,et al.  ACL as a Joint Project between Participants: A Preliminary Report , 2000, Issues in Agent Communication.

[61]  Andrew Lucas,et al.  JACK Intelligent Agents – Summary of an Agent Infrastructure , 2001 .