MAIDS - a Framework for the Development of Multi-Agent Intentional Dialogue Systems

This paper introduces a framework for programming highly sophisticated multi-agent dialogue systems. The framework is based on a multi-part agent belief base consisting of three components: (i) the main component is an extension of an agent-oriented programming belief base for representing defeasible knowledge and, in partic- ular, argumentation schemes; (ii) an ontology component where existing OWL ontologies can be instantiated; and (iii) a theory of mind component where agents keep track of mental attitudes they ascribe to other agents. The paper formalises a structured argumentation-based dialogue game where agents can “digress” from the main dialogue into subdialogues to discuss ontological or theory of mind issues. We provide an example of a dialogue with an ontological digression involving humans and agents, including a chatbot that we developed to support bed allocation in a hospital; we also comment on the initial evaluation of that chatbot carried out by domain experts. That example is also used to show that our framework supports all features of recent desiderata for future dialogue systems.This research was partially funded by CNPq, CAPES, FCT CEECIND /01997/2017 and UIDB/00057/2020

Intentional dialogues in multi-agent systems based on ontologies and argumentation

Some areas of application, for example, healthcare, are known to resist the replacement of human operators by fully autonomous systems. It is typically not transparent to users how artificial intelligence systems make decisions or obtain information, making it difficult for users to trust them. To address this issue, we investigate how argumentation theory and ontology techniques can be used together with reasoning about intentions to build complex natural language dialogues to support human decision-making. Based on such an investigation, we propose MAIDS, a framework for developing multi-agent intentional dialogue systems, which can be used in different domains. Our framework is modular so that it can be used in its entirety or just the modules that fulfil the requirements of each system to be developed. Our work also includes the formalisation of a novel dialogue-subdialogue structure with which we can address ontological or theory-of-mind issues and later return to the main subject. As a case study, we have developed a multi-agent system using the MAIDS framework to support healthcare professionals in making decisions on hospital bed allocations. Furthermore, we evaluated this multi-agent system with domain experts using real data from a hospital. The specialists who evaluated our system strongly agree or agree that the dialogues in which they participated fulfil Cohen’s desiderata for task-oriented dialogue systems. Our agents have the ability to explain to the user how they arrived at certain conclusions. Moreover, they have semantic representations as well as representations of the mental state of the dialogue participants, allowing the formulation of coherent justifications expressed in natural language, therefore, easy for human participants to understand. This indicates the potential of the framework introduced in this thesis for the practical development of explainable intelligent systems as well as systems supporting hybrid intelligence

Modelling dialogues in agent societies

Besides the simpler ability to interact, open multi-agent systems must include mechanisms for their agents to reach agreements by taking into account their social context. Argumentation provides multi-agent systems with a framework that assures a rational communication, which allows agents to reach agreements when conflicts of opinion arise. In this paper, we present the dialogue protocol that agents of a case-based argumentation framework can use to interact when they engage in argumentation dialogues. The syntax and semantics of the argumentation protocol are formalised and discussed. To illustrate our proposal, we have applied the protocol in the context of a water market. By using our dialogue protocol, agents represent water users that are able to explore different water allocations and justify their views about what is the best water distribution in a certain environment.This work is supported by the Spanish government Grants CONSOLIDER INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, MINECO/FEDER TIN2012-36586-C03-01, and MICINN TIN2011-27652-C03-01.Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2014). Modelling dialogues in agent societies. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 34:208-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2014.06.003S2082263

Towards a declarative approach to constructing dialogue games.

In this paper we sketch a new approach to the development of dialogue games that builds upon the knowledge gained from several decades of dialogue game research across a variety of communities and which leverages the capabilities of the Dialogue Game Description Language as a means to describe the constituent parts of dialogue games. Our ultimate aim is to produce a method for rapidly describing and implementing games that conform to the designer's needs by declaring what is required and then automatically constructing the game from components, called 'fragments', that are distilled from existing dialogue games

The Philosophical Foundations of PLEN: A Protocol-theoretic Logic of Epistemic Norms

In this dissertation, I defend the protocol-theoretic account of epistemic norms. The protocol-theoretic account amounts to three theses: (i) There are norms of epistemic rationality that are procedural; epistemic rationality is at least partially defined by rules that restrict the possible ways in which epistemic actions and processes can be sequenced, combined, or chosen among under varying conditions. (ii) Epistemic rationality is ineliminably defined by procedural norms; procedural restrictions provide an irreducible unifying structure for even apparently non-procedural prescriptions and normative expressions, and they are practically indispensable in our cognitive lives. (iii) These procedural epistemic norms are best analyzed in terms of the protocol (or program) constructions of dynamic logic. I defend (i) and (ii) at length and in multi-faceted ways, and I argue that they entail a set of criteria of adequacy for models of epistemic dynamics and abstract accounts of epistemic norms. I then define PLEN, the protocol-theoretic logic of epistemic norms. PLEN is a dynamic logic that analyzes epistemic rationality norms with protocol constructions interpreted over multi-graph based models of epistemic dynamics. The kernel of the overall argument of the dissertation is showing that PLEN uniquely satisfies the criteria defended; none of the familiar, rival frameworks for modeling epistemic dynamics or normative concepts are capable of satisfying these criteria to the same degree as PLEN. The overarching argument of the dissertation is thus a theory-preference argument for PLEN

Goal-driven Changes in Argumentation: A theoretical framework and a tool

International audienceThis paper defines a new framework for dynamics in argumentation. In this framework, an agent can change an argumentation system (the target system) in order to achieve some desired goal. Changes consist in addition/removal of arguments or attacks between arguments and are constrained by the agent’s knowledge encoded by another argumentation system. We present a software that computes the possible change operations for a given agent on a given target argumentation system in order to achieve some given goal

An Argumentation-Driven Model for Flexible and Efficient Persuasive Negotiation

The purpose of this paper is to propose a formal description and implementation of a negotiation protocol between autonomous agents using persuasive argumentation. This protocol is designed to be simple and computationally efficient. The computational efficiency is achieved by specifying the protocol as a set of simple logical rules that software agents can easily combine. These latter are specified as a set of computational dialogue games about which agents can reason. The protocol converges by checking the termination conditions. The paper discusses the formal properties of the protocol and addresses, as proof of concept, the implementation issues using an agent-oriented platform equipped with logical programming mechanisms

A Mathematical Model of Dialog

AbstractComputer Science is currently undergoing a paradigm shift, from viewing computer systems as isolated programs to viewing them as dynamic multi-agent societies. Evidence of this shift is the significant effort devoted recently to the design and implementation of languages and protocols for communications and interaction between software agents. Despite this effort, no formal mathematical theory of agent interaction languages and protocols yet exists. We argue that such a theory needs to account for the semantics of agent interaction, and propose the first mathematical theory which does this. Our framework incorporates category-theoretic entities for the utterances made in an agent dialog and for the commitments incurred by those utterances, together with maps between these