Peter McBurney
Michael Wooldridge
ABSTRACT
Designers of agent communications protocols are increasingly using formal dialogue games, adopted from argumentation theory, as the basis for structured agent interactions. We propose a set of desiderata for such protocols, drawing on recent research in agent interaction, on recent criteria for assessment of automated auction mechanisms and on elements of argumentation theory and political theory. We then assess several recent dialogue game protocols against our desiderata, revealing that each protocol has serious weaknesses. For comparison, we also assess the FIPA Agent Communications Language (ACL), thereby showing FIPA ACL to have limited applicability to dialogues not involving purchase negotiations. We conclude with a suggested checklist for designers of dialogue game protocols for agent interactions.
- R. Alexy. A theory of practical discourse. In S. Benhabib and F. Dallmayr, editors, The Communicative Ethics Controversy, pages 151--190. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990. (Originally published in German in 1978.).]]Google Scholar
- L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In E. Durfee, editor, Proc. 4th ICMAS, pages 31--38, Boston, 2000. IEEE.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Amgoud, S. Parsons, and N. Maudet. Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In W. Horn, editor, Proc. 14th European Conf. on AI (ECAI 2000), pages 338--342, Berlin, 2000. IOS Press.]]Google Scholar
- T. J. M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard, and P. H. Leng. A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. AI and Law, 8:233--254, 2000.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. A. Blair. The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation, 12:325--339, 1998.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Bohman and W. Rehg, editors. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997.]]Google Scholar
- F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Kȩplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lespérance, editors, Proc. 7th ATAL Workshop (ATAL-2000), pages 141--156, Boston, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Kȩplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305--319, 2001.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. LEA, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1992.]]Google Scholar
- D. J. Fiorino. Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review. Columbia J. Environmental Law, 14:501--547, 1989.]]Google Scholar
- FIPA. Communicative Act Library Specification. Technical Report XC00037H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical agents, 10 August 2001.]]Google Scholar
- J. Forester. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.]]Google Scholar
- F. Guerin and J. Pitt. Denotational semantics for agent communication languages. In J. P. Müller, E. Andre, S. Sen, and C. Frasson, editors, Proc. 5th Intern. Conf. Autonomous Agents, pages 497--504, New York, 2001. ACM Press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. L. Hamblin. Fallacies. Methuen, London, 1970.]]Google Scholar
- D. Hitchcock. Some principles of rational mutual inquiry. In F. van Eemeren phet al., editor, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. Argumentation, pages 236--243, Amsterdam, 1991. SICSAT.]]Google Scholar
- D. Hitchcock, P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. A framework for deliberation dialogues. In H. V. Hansen phet al., editor, Proc. 4th Conf. Ontario Soc. Study of Argumentation (OSSA-2001), Windsor, Canada, 2001.]]Google Scholar
- J. Hulstijn. Dialogue Models for Inquiry and Transaction. PhD thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, 2000.]]Google Scholar
- E. C. W. Krabbe. The problem of retraction in critical discussion. Synthese, 127(1-2):141--159, 2001.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Kraus. Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent Environments. The MIT Press, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Labrou, T. Finin, and Y. Peng. Agent communication languages: The current landscape. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(2):45--52, 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. L. Lilien, P. Kotler, and K. S. Moorthy. Marketing Models. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1992.]]Google Scholar
- P. Lorenzen and K. Lorenz. Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1978.]]Google Scholar
- J. D. MacKenzie. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:117--133, 1979.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and AI, 32(1--4):125--169, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. Logic, Language and Information, 11(3), 2002. phIn press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. McBurney and S. Parsons. A geometric semantics for dialogue-game protocols for autonomous agent interactions. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 52(2), 2002. phIn press.]]Google Scholar
- P. McBurney, R. M. van Eijk, S. Parsons, and L. Amgoud. A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. J. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2002. phIn press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Rehg. The argumentation theorist in deliberative democracy. Controversia, 2002 (to appear).]]Google Scholar
- J. S. Rosenschein and G. Zlotkin. Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. The MIT Press, 1994.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Sadri, F. Toni, and P. Torroni. Logic agents, dialogues and negotiation: an abductive approach. In M. Schroeder and K. Stathis, editors, Proc. Sym. Info Agents for E-Commerce, AISB-2001, York, UK, 2001. AISB.]]Google Scholar
- T. W. Sandholm. Distributed rational decision making. In G. Weiss, editor, Multiagent Systems: A Modern Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 201--258. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Sierra, N. R. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons. A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In M. P. Singh, A. Rao, and M. J. Wooldridge, editors, Intelligent Agents IV, LNAI 1365, pages 177--192, Berlin, 1998. Springer.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. P. Singh. A social semantics for agent communications languages. In F. Dignum, B. Chaib-draa, and H. Weigand, editors, Proc. IJCAI-99 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, Berlin, 2000. Springer.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1958.]]Google Scholar
- D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, USA, 1995.]]Google Scholar
- M. Wooldridge. Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. J. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(1):9--31, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols
Recommendations
Integrating jason in a multi-agent platform with support for interaction protocols.
SPLASH '11 Workshops: Proceedings of the compilation of the co-located workshops on DSM'11, TMC'11, AGERE! 2011, AOOPES'11, NEAT'11, & VMIL'11Agent communication is a core issue when studying all possible ways for agents to organize and collaborate to achieve their goals. We can count on communication standards, as the FIPA Interaction Protocols. On the other hand we can count on high level ...
Communicative acts and interaction protocols in a distributed information system
AAMAS '03: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systemsIn FIPA-style multi-agent systems, agents coordinate their activities by sending messages representing particular communicative acts (or performatives). Agent communication languages must strike a balance between simplicity and expressiveness by ...
Some Remarks on the Semantics of FIPA's Agent Communication Language
The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) standardisation body has produced a set of specifications outlining a generic model for the architecture and operation of agent-based systems. The FIPA'97 Specification Part 2 is the normative ...
Comments