DOI: 10.1017/S000000000000000 Printed in the United Kingdom Formal systems for persuasion dialogue

This article reviews formal systems that regulate persuasion dialogues. In such dialogues two or more participants aim to resolve a difference of opinion, each trying to persuade the other participants to adopt their point of view. Systems for persuasion dialogue have found application in various fields of computer science, such as non-monotonic logic, artificial intelligence and law, multi-agent systems, intelligent tutoring and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Taking a game-theoretic view on dialogue systems, this review proposes a formal specification of the main elements of dialogue systems for persuasion and then uses it to critically review some of the main formal systems for persuasion. The focus of this review will be on regulating the interaction between agents rather than on the design and behaviour of individual agents within a dialogue.

[1]  A. Lodder.  DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation , 1999 .

[2]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[3]  Gerhard Brewka.  Reasoning about Priorities in Default Logic , 1994, AAAI.

[4]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Argumentation-Based Communication between Agents , 2003, Communication in Multiagent Systems.

[5]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  An executable specification of an argumentation protocol , 2003, ICAIL.

[6]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Reaching Agreements Through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Properties and Complexity of Some Formal Inter-agent Dialogues , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[8]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game , 1999 .

[9]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Arresting circles in formal dialogues , 1978, J. Philos. Log..

[10]  Ronald Prescott Loui.  Jaap Hage, Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Law and Philosophy Library , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

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

[12]  C. L. Hamblin.  Mathematical models of dialogue1 , 2008 .

[13]  심헌섭.  Robert Alexy, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation (Die Theorie der rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begrundung) Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt/M 1978 , 1983 .

[14]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Logical dialogue-games and fallacies , 1984 .

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

[16]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Modelling dialogues using argumentation , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[17]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[18]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Agents That Reason and Negotiate by Arguing , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[19]  Henry Prakken,et al.  On Dialogue Systems with Speech Acts, Arguments, and Counterarguments , 2000, JELIA.

[20]  Joseph S. Fulda.  The logic of “improper cross” , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[21]  Dirk Vermeir,et al.  Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks , 1999, ICAIL '99.

[22]  Gerhard Brewka,et al.  Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus , 2001, J. Log. Comput..

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

[24]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  Nonmonotonic causal theories , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[25]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure , 2001, ICAIL '01.

[26]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents , 2002, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[27]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Conditional Entailment: Bridging two Approaches to Default Reasoning , 1992, Artif. Intell..

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

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

[30]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Hard cases: A procedural approach , 1993, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[31]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[32]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games , 2000, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[33]  Jim D. Mackenzie,et al.  Four dialogue systems , 1990, Stud Logica.

[34]  Tangming Yuan,et al.  Educational Human-computer Debate: a Computational Dialectics Approach , 2002 .

[35]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments , 2002, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[36]  Maxime Morge,et al.  Computer-supported collaborative argumentation , 2004 .

[37]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[38]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  Arno R. Lodder, DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library Vol. 42 , 2000, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[39]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation , 2000, Synthese.

[40]  Robert Alexy.  Theorie der juristischen Argumentation : die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung , 1978 .

[41]  D. Harrison,et al.  Vicious Circles , 1995 .

[42]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Process and Policy: Resource‐Bounded NonDemonstrative Reasoning , 1998, Comput. Intell..

[43]  Hadassa Jakobovits,et al.  On the theory of argumentation frameworks , 2000 .

[44]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Optimal utterances in dialogue protocols , 2003, AAMAS '03.

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

[46]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  Pleadings game - an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice , 1995 .

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

[48]  Robert Alexy.  Theorie der juristischen Argumentation , 1991 .

[49]  Nicolas Maudet,et al.  A Generic Framework For Dialogue Game Implementation , 1998 .

[50]  I. Angelelli.  The Techniques of Disputation in the History of Logic , 1970 .

[51]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Is there a Burden of Questioning? , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[52]  J. Pollock.  Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person , 1995 .

[53]  H. B. Verheij.  Rules, reasons, arguments : formal studies of argumentation and defeat , 1996 .

[54]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[55]  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..

[56]  Lauri Carlson.  Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis , 1982 .