Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An inquiry dialogue system

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

Abstract

The majority of existing work on agent dialogues considers negotiation, persuasion or deliberation dialogues; we focus on inquiry dialogues, which allow agents to collaborate in order to find new knowledge. We present a general framework for representing dialogues and give the details necessary to generate two subtypes of inquiry dialogue that we define: argument inquiry dialogues allow two agents to share knowledge to jointly construct arguments; warrant inquiry dialogues allow two agents to share knowledge to jointly construct dialectical trees (essentially a tree with an argument at each node in which a child node is a counter argument to its parent). Existing inquiry dialogue systems only model dialogues, meaning they provide a protocol which dictates what the possible legal next moves are but not which of these moves to make. Our system not only includes a dialogue-game style protocol for each subtype of inquiry dialogue that we present, but also a strategy that selects exactly one of the legal moves to make. We propose a benchmark against which we compare our dialogues, being the arguments that can be constructed from the union of the agents’ beliefs, and use this to define soundness and completeness properties that we show hold for all inquiry dialogues generated by our system.

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., Cayrol C. (2002) A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1–3): 197–216

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., & Hameurlain, N. (2006). An argumentation-based approach for dialogue move selection. In Third International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ARGMAS 2006) (pp. 111–125). Hakodate, Japan, 8–12 May.

  3. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., & Parsons, S. (2000). Arguments, dialogue and negotiation. In Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000) (pp. 338–342). Berlin, Germany: IOS Press.

  4. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., & Parsons, S. (2000). Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 31–38). Boston, USA: IEEE Press.

  5. Atkinson, K., & Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2007). Argumentation and standards of proof. In Eleventh International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2007) (pp. 107–116). Palo Alto, CA, USA: ACM Press.

  6. Bench-Capon T.J.M. (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Bench-Capon T.J.M., Geldard T., Leng P.H. (2000) A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8: 233–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bentahar, J., Alam, R., & Maamar, Z. (2008). An argumentation-based protocol for conflict resolution. In KR2008-Workshop on Knowledge Representation for Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (KRAMAS 2008) (pp. 19–35). Sydney, Australia.

  9. Besnard P., Hunter A. (2001) A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128: 203–235

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Bex, F., & Prakken, H. (2004). Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue: An application to evidential reasoning. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX 2004: The Seventeenth Annual Conference (pp. 119–129). IOS Press.

  11. Black, E. (2007). A generative framework for argumentation-based inquiry dialogues. Ph.D. thesis, University College London.

  12. Black, E., & Hunter, A. (2007). A generative inquiry dialogue system. In Sixth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2007) (pp. 1010–1017). Honolulu, HI, USA.

  13. Black, E., & Hunter, A. (2008). Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system. In Seventh International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2008) (pp. 437–444). Estoril, Portugal.

  14. Brena R.F., Aguirre J.-L., Chesñevar C. I., Ramírez E. H., Garrido L. (2007) Knowledge and information distribution leveraged by intelligent agents. Knowledge and Information Systems 12(2): 203–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chesñevar C. I., Dix J., Stolzenburg F., Simari G.R. (2003) Relating defeasible and normal logic programming through transformation properties. Theoretical Computer Science 290(1): 499–529

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. de Almedia Móra I., Alferes J.J., Schroeder M. (1998) Argumentation and cooperation for distributed extended logic programs. In: Dix J., Lobo J.(eds) Working Notes of the Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Trento, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dignum, F., Dunin-Keplicz, B., & Verbrugge, R. (2000). Dialogue in team formation. In F. Dignum & M. Greaves (Eds.), Issues in agent communication (pp. 264–280). Springer-Verlag.

  18. Dignum, F., & Vreeswijk, G. (2003). Towards a testbed for multi-party dialogues. In AAMAS International Workshop on Agent Communication Languages and Conversation Policies (pp. 63–71).

  19. Dung P.M. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Dung P.M., Kowalski R.A., Toni F. (2006) Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2): 114–159

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Dunne P.E., Bench-Capon T.J.M. (2003) Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149(2): 221–250

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Dunne, P.E., McBurney, P. (2003). Optimal utterances in dialogue protocols. In Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Mutli-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2003) (pp. 608–615). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.

  23. Fox, J., & Das, S. (2000). Safe and sound: Artificial intelligence in hazardous applications. AAAI Press and The MIT Press.

  24. Fox, J., Glasspool, D., & Bury, J. (2001). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to reasoning under uncertainty in medical decision making. In Eighth Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine in Europe (AIME 2001) (pp. 272–282). Cascais, Portugal.

  25. García A. J., Simari G.R. (2004) Defeasible logic programming an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1–2): 95–138

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Gómez S.A., Chesñevar C.I., Simari G.R. (2008) Defeasible reasoning in web-based forms through argumentation. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making 7(1): 71–101

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. González, M. P., Chesñevar, C. I., Collazos, C. A., & Simari, G. R. (2007). Modelling shared knowledge and shared knowledge awareness in cscl scenarios through automated argumentation systems. In J. M. Haake, S. F. Ochoa, & A. Cechich (Eds.), CRIWG, volume 4715 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 207–222). Springer.

  28. Gordon, T. F. (1995). The pleadings game; an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer Academinc Publishers.

  29. Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2001). A framework for deliberation dialogues. In H. V. Hansen, et al. (Eds.), Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001). Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

  30. Hulstijn, J. (2000). Dialogue models for inquiry and transaction. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

  31. Kakas, A., Maudet, N., & Moraitis, P. (2004). Layered strategies and protocols for argumentation-based agent interaction. In I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis, & C. Reed (Eds.), First International Workshop on Argumentation in MultiAgent Systems (ARGMAS 2004), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI) 3366 (pp. 66–79). New York: Springer-Verlag.

  32. McBurney P., Parsons S. (2001) Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 32(1–4): 125–169

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. McBurney P., Parsons S. (2002) Dialogue games in multi-agent systems. Informal Logic 22(3): 257–274

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. McBurney P., Parsons S. (2002) Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11(3): 315–334 Special issue on logic and games

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Modgil, S. (2007). An abstract theory of argumentation that accomodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In Ninth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007) (pp. 648–659). Hammamet, Tunisia.

  37. Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Sklar, E., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues. In Sixth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Mutli-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2007) (pp. 1002–1009). Honolulu, HI, USA.

  38. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., & Amgoud, L. (2002). An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Mutli-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002) (pp. 394–401). Bologna, Italy: ACM Press.

  39. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., & Amgoud, L. (2003). On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues. In Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2003) (pp. 616–623). Melbourne, Australia.

  40. Parsons S., Wooldridge M., Amgoud. L. (2003) Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 347–376 Special issue on computational dialectics

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Pasquier, P., Rahwan, I., Dignum, F., & Sonenberg, L. (2006). Argumentation and persuasion in the cognitive coherence theory. In First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006) (pp. 223–234). Liverpool, UK: IOS Press.

  42. Prakken H. (2005) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6): 1009–1040

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2005). Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on AI and Law (pp. 115–124). New York, USA: ACM Press.

  44. Rahwan, I., McBurney, P., & Sonenberg, L. (2003). Towards a theory of negotiation strategy (a preliminary report). In Fifth Workshop on Game Theoretic and Decision Theoretic Agents (GTDT-2003) (pp. 73–80).

  45. Reed, C. (1998). Dialogue frames in agent communications. In Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998) (pp. 246–253). IEE Press.

  46. Sadri, F., Toni, F., & Torroni, P. (2001). Dialogues for negotiation: Agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In J.-J. Meyer & M. Tambe (Eds.), Pre-Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-2001) (pp. 69–84).

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

  48. Thimm, M., & Kern-Isberner, G. (2008). A distributed argumentation framework using defeasible logic programming. In Second International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008) (pp. 381–392). Toulouse, France: IOS Press.

  49. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Press.

  50. Williams, M., & Hunter, A. (2007). Harnessing ontologies for argument-based decision-making in breast cancer. In 19th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2007) (Vol. 2, pp. 254–261). IEEE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. COSSAC: IRC in Cognitive Science and Systems Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Elizabeth Black

  2. Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK

    Anthony Hunter

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Black.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Black, E., Hunter, A. An inquiry dialogue system. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 19, 173–209 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9074-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9074-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation