Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Context and Recent Developments

  • Conference paper
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2006)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4766))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This chapter provides a brief survey of argumentation in multi-agent systems. It is not only brief, but rather idiosyncratic, and focuses on the areas of research that most interest the authors, and those which seem to be the most active at the time of writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L.: A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 552–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: AAMAS 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, ACM Press, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N.: Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report). In: Benferhat, S., Giunchiglia, E. (eds.) NMR 2002: Special session on Argument, Dialogue and Decision, pp. 399–407 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Durfee, E. (ed.) ICMAS 1998, Boston MA, USA, pp. 31–38. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Horn, W. (ed.) ECAI 2000, pp. 338–342. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aristotle: Topics. In: Ross, W.D. (ed.) Clarendon, Oxford, UK (1928)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 153–171 (2006) Special issue on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Argument in artificial intelligence and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5(4), 249–261 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bourgne, G., Hette, G., Maudet, N., Pinson, S.: Hypothesis refinement under topological communication constraints. In: AAMAS-2007, Honolulu, Hawaii (May 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brewka, G.: Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Caminadas, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 121–130. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cayrol, C., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Handling controversial arguments in bipolar argumentation systems. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 261–272. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chesñevar, C.I., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 293–316 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Marquis, P.: Merging argumentation systems. In: AAAI 2005, Pittsburgh, USA, pp. 614–619. AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dignum, F., Dunin-Kȩplicz, B., Berbrugge, R.: Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, pp. 150–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Dignum, F., Dunin-Kȩplicz, B., Berbrugge, R.: Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9(2), 289–303 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Doyle, J.: A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence 12, 231–272 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Elhadad, M.: Using argumentation in text generation. Journal of Pragmatics 24, 189–220 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P., Fox, J.: Acceptability of arguments as logical uncertainty. In: Moral, S., Kruse, R., Clarke, E. (eds.) ECSQARU 1993. LNCS, vol. 747, pp. 85–90. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferguson, G.: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning for Mixed-Initiative Planning. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Rochester, URCS TR 562 (January 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fernández, R., Endriss, U.: Abstract models for dialogue protocols. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(2), 121–140 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. FIPA. Communicative Act Library Specification. Technical Report XC00037H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (August 10, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fox, J., Barber, D., Bardhan, K.D.: Alternatives to Bayes? A quantitative comparison with rule-based diagnostic inference. Methods of Information in Medicine 19, 210–215 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fox, J., Krause, P., Ambler, S.: Arguments, contradictions and practical reasoning. In: Neumann, B. (ed.) ECAI-1992, Vienna, Austria, pp. 623–627 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fox, J., Parsons, S.: Arguing about beliefs and actions. In: Hunter, A., Parsons, S. (eds.) Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1455, pp. 266–302. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Georgeff, M.P.: Planning. Annual Review of Computer Science 2, 359–400 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gordon, T.F., Karacapilidis, N.: The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 10–18. ACM Press, New York (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Hamblin, C.L.: Fallacies. Methuen, London, UK (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: A framework for deliberation dialogues. In: Hansen, H.V., Tindale, C.W., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H. (eds.) OSSA 2001, Ontario, Canada (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Horvitz, E.J., Breese, J.S., Henrion, M.: Decision theory in expert systems and artificial intelligence. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 2, 247–302 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hulstijn, J.: Dialogue models for enquiry and transaction. PhD thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In: Hunter, A., Lang, J. (eds.) NMR 2004, Whistler, Canada (June 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Jung, H., Tambe, M.: Towards argumentation as distributed constraint satisfaction. In: Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jung, H., Tambe, M., Kulkarni, S.: Argumentation as distributed constraint satisfaction: applications and results. In: Müller, J.P., Andre, E., Sen, S., Frasson, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada, pp. 324–331. ACM Press, New York (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Rosenschein, J.S., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M., Yokoo, M. (eds.) AAMAS-2003, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 883–890. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R.: Is it worth arguing? In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 234–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J.: A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11, 113–131 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Loui, R.P.: Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 3, 100–106 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Loui, R.P.: Process and policy: Resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14, 1–38 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Maudet, N., Chaib-draa, B.: Commitment-based and dialogue-game based protocols – new trends in agent communication language. Knowledge Engineering Review 17(2), 157–179 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mbarki, M., Bentahar, J., Moulin, B.: Strategic and tactic reasoning for communicating agents. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  46. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue game protocols. In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 269–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  47. McBurney, P., van Eijk, R.M., Parsons, S., Amgoud, L.: A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7(3), 235–273 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McCarthy, J.: Circumscription – a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 27–39 (1980)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  49. Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: Computing preferred extensions for argumentation systems with sets of attacking arguments. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA 2006, pp. 97–108. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ontañón, S., Plaza, E.: Arguments and counterexamples in case-based joint deliberation. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Preece, A.: Loose lips sink ships: A heuristic for argumentation. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Parsons, S., Fox, J.: Argumentation and decision making: A position paper. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds.) FAPR 1996. LNCS, vol. 1085, pp. 705–709. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Parsons, S., Green, S.: Argumentation and qualitative decision making. In: Hunter, A., Parsons, S. (eds.) ECSQARU 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1638, pp. 328–339. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Sklar, E., Wooldridge, M.: On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues. In: AAMAS-2007, Honolulu, HI (May 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Wooldridge, M.: Some preliminary steps towards a meta-theory for formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  57. Parsons, S., Sklar, E.: How agents alter their beliefs after an argumentation-based dialogue. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J., Amgoud, L.: On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Rosenschein, J., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M.J, Yokoo, M. (eds.) AAMAS-2003, pp. 616–623. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 347–376 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  60. Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481–518 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Pollock, J.L.: The logical foundations of goal-regression planning in autonomous agents. Artificial Intelligence 106(2), 267–334 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. Prakken, H.: On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  63. Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  64. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  65. Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 163–188 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.N.: Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp. 32–41. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  67. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: a criticial survey. In: Pauli, J. (ed.) Learning-Based Robot Vision. LNCS, vol. 2048, pp. 342–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn. vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Rahwan, I.: Interest-based Negotiation in Multi-Agent Systems. PhD thesis, Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, L., Dignum, F.: On the benefits of exploiting underlying goals in argument-based negotiation. In: Holte, R.C., Howe, A. (eds.) AAAI-2007, Menlo Park CA, USA, AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D, Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4), 343–375 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C.: Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence (to appear, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI-agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, San Francisco, USA (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Reed, C., Norman, T.J.: Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation. Argumentation Library, vol. 9. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  75. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  76. Rueda, S.V., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument-based negotiation among BDI agents. Computer Science & Technology 2(7) (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sadri, F., Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Logic agents, dialogues and negotiation: an abductive approach. In: Stathis, K., Schroeder, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the AISB 2001 Symposium on Information Agents for E-Commerce (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Simari, G.R., Garcia, A.J., Capobianco, M.: Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Whistler BC, Canada, pp. 377–384 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  80. Sycara, K.: The PERSUADER. In: Shapiro, D. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  81. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.F., Henkemans, F.S.: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ, USA (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(1-2), 167–195 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Walton, D.N.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Wurman, P.R., Wellman, M.P., Walsh, W.E.: A parametrization of the auction design space. Games and Economic Behavior 35(1-2), 304–338 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LAMSADE, Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris 75775 Cedex 16, France

    Nicolas Maudet

  2. Department of Computer and Information Science, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, 2900 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, 11210 NY, USA

    Simon Parsons

  3. Institute of Informatics, The British University in Dubai, P.O.Box 502216, Dubai, UAE, (Fellow) School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, UK

    Iyad Rahwan

Authors
  1. Nicolas Maudet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iyad Rahwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Nicolas Maudet Simon Parsons Iyad Rahwan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (2007). Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Context and Recent Developments. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4766. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75525-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75526-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation