Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DIAGAL: An Agent Communication Language Based on Dialogue Games and Sustained by Social Commitments

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, social commitment based approaches have been proposed to solve problems issuing from previous mentalistic based semantics for agent communication languages. This paper follows the same line of thought since it presents the latest version of our dialogue game based agent communication language – DIAlogue-Game based Agent Language (DIAGAL) – which allows agents to manipulate the public layer of social commitments through dialogue, by creating, canceling and updating their social commitments. To make apparent such commitments, we consider here Agent Communication Language (ACL) from the dialectic point of view, where agents “play a game” based on commitments. Such games based on commitments are incorporated in the DIAGAL language, which has been developed having in mind the following questions: (a) What kind of structure does the game have? How are rules specified within the game? (b) What kind of games compositions are allowed? (c) How do participants in conversations reach agreement on the current game? How are games opened or closed? Using such games we show how we can study the commitments dynamic to model agent dialogue and we present metrics that can be used to evaluate the quality of a dialogue between agents. Next, we use an example (summer festival organization) to show how DIAGAL can be used in analyzing and modeling automated conversations in offices. Finally, we present the results and analysis of the summer festival simulations that we realized through our dialogue game simulator (DGS).

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., & Parsons, S. (2000a). Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In Durfee, E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS) (pp. 31–38). Boston, MA.

  2. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., & Maudet, N. (2000b). Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In Proceedings of the European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 338–342). Berlin, Germany.

  3. J. L. Austin (1962) How to do things with words Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barbuceanu, M., & Fox, M. (1995). COOL: A language for describing coordination in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS) (pp. 17–25). San-Francisco, CA.

  5. Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P. E. S., & Leng, P. H. (1991). Interacting with knowledge-based systems through dialogue games. In 11th international conference on expert systems and applications (pp. 123–140). Marseille.

  6. Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2004). Contracts as legal institutions in organizations of autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’04) (pp. 706–713). New York.

  7. M. Bratman (1987) Intention, plans, and practical reason Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. Brewka (2001) ArticleTitleDynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation based on situation calculus Journal of Logic and Computation 11 IssueID2 257–282 Occurrence Handle10.1093/logcom/11.2.257 Occurrence Handle0986.68141 Occurrence Handle2002b:03063

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., & van der Torre, L. (2001). The BOID architecture. In Proceedings of fifth international conference on autonomous agents. Montreal, CN.

  10. Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F., Jonker, C., & Treur, J. (2000). Deliberative normative agents: principles and architecture. In Intelligent agents VI: Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on agent theories, architectures and languages (ATAL 1999) (pp. 364–378). LNAI 1757, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  11. B. Chaib-draa B. Dignum (2002) ArticleTitleTrends in agent communication language Computational intelligence 18 IssueID2 89–101 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-8640.00184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.

  13. P. R. Cohen H. J. Levesque (1990) ArticleTitleIntention is choice with commitment Artificial Intelligence 42 213–261 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0004-3702(90)90055-5 Occurrence Handle91d:68114

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1995). Communicative actions for artificial agents. In Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS95) (pp. 65–72). San-Francisco, CA.

  15. Colombetti, M., & Verdicchio, M. (2002). An analysis of agent speech acts as an institutional actions. In Proceeding of the international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS’02 (pp. 1157–1166). Bologna, Italy.

  16. Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., & der Torre, L. V. (2000). Negotiation Protocols and Dialogue Games. In Proceedings of the international conference on autonomous agents (AA’01) (pp. 180–181). Montreal, CN.

  17. Dastani, M., & van der Torre, L. (2004). Programming BOID Agents: a deliberation language for conflicts between mental attitudes and plans. In Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’04) (pp. 706–713). New York.

  18. F. Dignum (1999) ArticleTitleAutonomous agents with norms AI and Law 7 69–79

    Google Scholar 

  19. F. Dignum B. Dunin-Keplicz R. Vebrugge (2000) Agent theory for team formation by dialogue C. Castelfranchi Y. Lespérance (Eds) Intelligent agent VII: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages (ATAL 2000) Springer Berlin, Germany 150–166

    Google Scholar 

  20. F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) (2000) Issues in agent communication Springer-verlag Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dignum, F., Morley, D., Sonenberg, D., & Cavedon, L. (2000). Towards socially sophisticated agents. In E. Durfee, (Ed.), Proceedings of international conference on multiagent systems (ICMAS’00), (pp. 111–118). Boston, MA.

  22. Excelente-Toledo, C., Bourne, R. A., & Jennings, N. R. (2001). Reasoning about commitments and penalties for coordination between autonomous agents. In Proceedings of autonomous agents (Agents-01) (pp.~131–138). Montreal, CN.

  23. Finin, T., Labrou, Y., & Mayfield, J. (1995). KQML as an agent communication language. In J. Bradshaw, (Ed.), Software agents. MIT Press.

  24. FIPA. (1999). FIPA-ACL specifications: Foundation for intelligent physical agents. http://www.fipa.org/spec.

  25. Flores, R., Pasquier, P., & Chaib-draa, B. (2006). Conversational semantics sustained by commitments. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems to appear.

  26. R. F. Flores R. C. Kremer (2002) ArticleTitleA formal theory for agent conversations for actions Computational intelligence 18 IssueID2 120–173 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-8640.00186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fornana, N., Viganó, F., & Colombetti, M. (2004). Agent Communication and Institutional Reality. In van R.M. Eijk, M.-P. Huget, & F. Dignum, (Eds.), Proceeding of the international workshop on agent Communication, AC 2004, Vol. 3396 of Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (LNAI) (pp. 1–17).

  28. Gordon, T. (1996). Computational dialectics. In P. Hoschka, (Ed.). Computers as assistants—a new generation of support systems, (pp. 186–203). L. Erlbaum.

  29. M. Greaves H. Holmback J. Bradshaw (2000) What is a conversation policy? F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) Issues in agent communication Springer& verky Berlin 118–131

    Google Scholar 

  30. Guerin, F. & Pitt, J. (2001). A denotational semantics for agent communication languages. In Proceedings of autonomous agents (Agents-2001) (pp. 497–504). Montreal, CN.

  31. Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen.

  32. J. Hulstijn (2000) Dialogue models for inquiry and transaction University of Twente The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  33. L. P. Kaelbling M. L. Littman A. W. Moore (1996) ArticleTitleReinforcement laerning: A survey’ Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4 237–285

    Google Scholar 

  34. Khan, S. M., & Lesperanc, Y. (2004). A model of rational agency for communicating agents. In R. M. van Eijk, M.-P., Huget, & F. Dignum, (Eds.). Proceeding of the international workshop on agent communication, AC 2004, Vol. 3396 of Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (LNAI) (pp. 242–259).

  35. Labrou, Y. & Finin, T. (1998). Semantics and conversations for an agent communication language. In M. Huhns, & M. Singh, (Eds.), Reading in agents (pp. 235–242). Morgan Kaufmann.

  36. Y. Labrou T. Finin Y. Peng (1999) ArticleTitleAgent communication languages: the current landscape IEEE Intelligent systems 14 IssueID2 45–52 Occurrence Handle10.1109/5254.757631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. J. Levin J. Moore (1980) ArticleTitleDialogue-games: meta-communication structure for natural language interaction Cognitive Science 1 IssueID4 395–420

    Google Scholar 

  38. F. Lin D. H. Norrie W. Shen R. Kremer (2000) A schema-based approach to specifying conversation policies F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) Issues in agent communication Sringer Verlag Berlin 193–204

    Google Scholar 

  39. P. Lorenzen K. Lorenz (1978) Dialogische logik Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mallya, A. U., & Singh, M. (2004). A Semantic approach for designing commitment protocols. In R. M., van Eijk, M.-P., Huget, & F. Dignum, (Eds.), Proceeding of the international workshop on agent communication, AC 2004, Vol. 3396 of lecture notes in artificial intelligence (LNAI) (pp. 33–49).

  41. Marsh, S. P. (1994). Formalising trust as a computational concept. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stirling.

  42. N. Maudet (2001) Modéliser les conventions des interactions langagières: la contribution des jeux de dialogue Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse, FR

    Google Scholar 

  43. N. Maudet (2003) ArticleTitleNegociating games—a research note Journal of Autonoumous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7 229–233

    Google Scholar 

  44. N. Maudet B. Chaib-draa (2002) ArticleTitleCommitment-based and dialogue-game based protocols–new trends in agent communication language The Knowledge Engineering Review 17 IssueID2 157–179 Occurrence Handle10.1017/S0269888902000486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Maudet, N., & Evrard, F. (1998). A generic framework for dialogue game implementation. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on formal semantics and pragmatics of dialogue. University of Twente, The Netherlands.

  46. Mazouzi, H., Seghrouni, A. E. F., & Haddad, S. (2002). Open protocols design for complex interactions in multi-agent systems. In Proceeding of the international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’02) (pp. 517–526).

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

    Google Scholar 

  48. McBurney, P., Parsons, S., & Wooldridge, M. (2002). Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In Procceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agents (pp. 402–409). Bologna, Italy.

  49. P. J. McBurney (2002) Rational interaction University of Liverpool England

    Google Scholar 

  50. D. Moore (1993) Dialogue game theory for intelligent tutoring systems Leeds Metropolitan University England

    Google Scholar 

  51. Parsons, S., & Jennings, N. (1996). Negociation through argumentation —a preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on multi agent systems (ICMAS’96) (pp. 267–274). Kyoto, Japan.

  52. S. Parsons C. Sierra N. R. Jennings (1998) ArticleTitleAgents that reason and negotiate by arguing Journal of Logic and Computation 8 IssueID3 261–292 Occurrence Handle10.1093/logcom/8.3.261 Occurrence Handle99d:68222

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  53. S. Parsons M. Wooldridge L. Amgoud (2003) ArticleTitleProperties and complexity of formal inter-agent dialogues Journal of Logic and Computation 13 IssueID3 373–390 Occurrence Handle10.1093/logcom/13.3.347 Occurrence Handle2004h:68130

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  54. Parunak, H. V. (1996). Visualizing agent conversations: using enhanced dooley graphs for agent design and analysis. Proceedings of the second international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS96) (pp. 275–282). Kyoto, Japan.

  55. J. Pitt A. Mamdani (1999) ArticleTitleSome remarks on the semantics of FIPA’s agent communication language Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems Journal 4 333–356

    Google Scholar 

  56. Prakken, H. (2000). On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In Proceedings of the 7th European workshop on logic for artificial intelligence (JELIA) (pp. 239–253). Malaga.

  57. H. Prakken (2001) ArticleTitleRelating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation Synthese 127 187–219 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1010322504453 Occurrence Handle0980.03032 Occurrence Handle2002a:03059

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  58. Reed, C. (1998). Dialogue frames in agent communication. In Proceedings of the third international conference on multiagent systems (ICMAS’98) (pp. 246–253). Paris, France.

  59. Sadri F., Toni F. & Torroni P. (2001). Logic agents, dialogues and negotiation: an abductive approach. In: Schroeder M., K. S. A. (Eds.), Symposium on information agents for e-commerce, AI and the simulation of behaviour conference. AISB: York.

  60. J. Searle (1995) The construction of social reality Free Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. J. R. Searle (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  62. M. P. Singh (1998) ArticleTitleAgent communication languages: rethinking the principles IEEE Computer 31 IssueID12 40–47

    Google Scholar 

  63. M. P. Singh (2000) A social semantics for agent communication language F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) Issues in agent communication Springer-Verlag Berlin 31–45

    Google Scholar 

  64. F. H. Eemeren Particlevan R. Grootendorst (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective Lawrence Erlbaum London

    Google Scholar 

  65. L. Vongkasem B. Chaib-draa (2000) ACL as a joint project between participants F. Dignum M. Greaves (Eds) Issues in agent communication Springer-Verlag Berlin 235–248

    Google Scholar 

  66. Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. State University of New York Press.

  67. Wan, F., & Singh, M. P. (2003). Commitments and causality for multiagent design. In Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, (pp. 749–756).

  68. T. Winograd F. Flores (1986) Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design Ablex Publishing Co. Norwood, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  69. M. Wooldridge (2000) ArticleTitleSemantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 39 IssueID1 9–31

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science and Software Engineering Department, Laval University, Québec, Canada

    Brahim Chaib-draa, Marc-André Labrie, Mathieu Bergeron & Philippe Pasquier

Authors
  1. Brahim Chaib-draa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc-André Labrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathieu Bergeron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philippe Pasquier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brahim Chaib-draa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chaib-draa, B., Labrie, MA., Bergeron, M. et al. DIAGAL: An Agent Communication Language Based on Dialogue Games and Sustained by Social Commitments. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 13, 61–95 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-006-5961-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-006-5961-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation