Missing Phases of Deliberation Dialogue for Real Applications

Models of deliberative dialogue are fundamental for developing autonomous systems that support human practical reasoning. However, we must consider whether these existing models are able to capture the complexity and richness of natural deliberation for developing real applications. In real contexts, circumstances relevant to the decision can change rapidly. In this paper, we introduce an extension to today\u27s leading model of deliberation dialogue to capture dynamic changes of circumstances during dialogue. Moreover, in natural deliberation, a dialogue may be successful even if a decision on what to do has not been made. A set of criteria is proposed to address the problem of when to close o the practical reasoning phase of dialogue. We then discuss some initial efforts to introduce those characteristics within an existing model of deliberation for agent collaboration. We believe that our extended model of dialogue may represent that richness of natural deliberative dialogue that is yet to be addressed in existing models of agent deliberatio

On the emergent Semantic Web and overlooked issues

The emergent Semantic Web, despite being in its infancy, has already received a lotof attention from academia and industry. This resulted in an abundance of prototype systems and discussion most of which are centred around the underlying infrastructure. However, when we critically review the work done to date we realise that there is little discussion with respect to the vision of the Semantic Web. In particular, there is an observed dearth of discussion on how to deliver knowledge sharing in an environment such as the Semantic Web in effective and efficient manners. There are a lot of overlooked issues, associated with agents and trust to hidden assumptions made with respect to knowledge representation and robust reasoning in a distributed environment. These issues could potentially hinder further development if not considered at the early stages of designing Semantic Web systems. In this perspectives paper, we aim to help engineers and practitioners of the Semantic Web by raising awareness of these issues

The effect of Dutch and German cultures on negotiation strategy comparing operations and innovation management in the supply chain

negotiation, strategy, culture, Dutch, German

Dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation

UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 PTDC/FER‐FIL/28278/2017 PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014Dialogue moves are a pragmatic instrument that captures the most important categories of “dialogical intentions.” This paper adapts this tool to the conversational setting of chronic care communication, characterized by the general goal of making reasoned decisions concerning patients’ conditions, shared by the latter. 7 mutually exclusive and comprehensive categories were identified, whose reliability was tested on an Italian corpus of provider-patient encounters in diabetes care. The application of this method was illustrated through explorative analyses identifying possible correlations between the dialogical structure of medical interviews and one of the indicators of personalized decision-making, namely the specificity of the recommendations given by the provider (“customization”). The statistical analyses show a significant correlation between the exchange of personal information and very specific and customized recommendations for change. It suggests how the creation of common ground, exceeding the boundaries of the paternalistic or patient-centered models, can lead to highly effective communication.authorsversionpublishe

Unraveling business negotiations using practitioner data

Although negotiations are a core business activity there is a lack of information about what actually occurs during a business negotiation. This study addresses this issue though an international survey of managers focusing on actual negotiations. The 294 respondents reported on what actions they took as they sought to achieve an agreement, including how information was exchanged, how they looked for new solutions and managed concession making. The analysis suggests a pragmatic approach to negotiation, whereby information is not withheld, but neither is it freely given. Solutions emerge from discussion of priorities and commonalities, rather than through more formal creative processes. The underlying script of negotiation appears to draw more on competitive than overtly collaborative tactics, suggesting that business negotiators are cautious co-operators. Further research avenues include investigating the pressures and context that impact upon negotiators’ decision making and closer examination of interactions between negotiation tasks en-route to an agreement

The effect of Dutch and German cultures on negotiation strategy comparing operations and innovation management in the supply chain

Conflict resolution or negotiations in different business settings may induce different types of negotiation behavior. More specifically, the usually more defined problems in an operations management (OM) setting may lead to different behavior than a usually more diffuse innovation management (IM) context. In addition, negotiators from different national cultures may react differently to such variations in business settings. This article tries to address these issues through a set of experiments, the specific aim of our study being to find out whether there is a difference between German and Dutch negotiators regarding their negotiation behavior in IM and OM settings. To analyze possible cross-cultural differences, negotiations that took place in a German monocultural setting and those in a Dutch monocultural setting are compared. Two hypotheses are formulated: • German negotiators are more cooperative in the OM context than in the IM context. • Dutch negotiators are more cooperative in the IM context than in the OM context. Both hypotheses could be confirmed by using speech act analysis and personal pronoun analysis, using a 2 * 2 experimental design with nationality as between-subject factor and business setting as within-subject factor. The data set we analyzed contains transcripts for 44 negotiators comprising 32.624 words in total. Non-cooperative speech acts related to the use of the first pronoun show your limits and there might be more need of this in the competitive setting of OM than in IM; Dutch negotiators had problems with using a cooperative attitude and building empathy in an OM context, whereas German negotiators discovered those problems in the IM situation

Negotiating Socially Optimal Allocations of Resources with Argumentation

The resource allocation problem of multi-agent systems is the problem of deciding how to allocate resources, controlled by agents, to agents within a given system. Agents typically have preferences over alternative allocations of resources. These preferences may be derived from the agents’ goals, which can be fulfilled by different plans (sets of resources). The problem arises because agents may not be able to fulfil their goals without being re-allocated resources controlled by other agents and agents may have conflicting preferences over allocations. Examples of the resource allocation problem include electronic commerce (where resources are commodities equipped with prices), the grid (where resources are computational entities equipped with computational power), and scheduling and timetabling (where resources may be tasks with costs). The focus in this thesis is distributed decision-making amongst agents, whereby agents actively participate in computing re-allocations, starting from initial allocations which may or may not fulfil their goals. A re-allocation is arrived at by means of local negotiation steps wherein resources change hands between the agents involved in the negotiations. The negotiation method of choice in this thesis is argumentation-based negotiation supported by assumption-based argumentation. This method allows agents to work towards their goals despite incomplete information regarding the goals of and resources allocated to other agents, to share knowledge, thereby eliminating unknowns, and to resolve conflicts within themselves and between one another which may arise because of inconsistent information. Solutions generated by a resource allocation mechanism may be ranked according to how they affect the individual welfare of the agents as well as the overall social welfare of the agent society, according to different notions of social welfare borrowed from economics. The argumentation-based negotiation mechanism we propose guarantees, for the problem domain of interest in this thesis, that negotiations between agents always terminate converging to a solution. Moreover, the mechanism guarantees that solutions reached optimise the welfare of the individual agents as well as the agent society as a whole according to Pareto optimal and utilitarian notions of social welfare

Argumentation-based dialogues over cooperative plans

If autonomous agents operating with other agents in open systems are to fulfil their goals and design objectives, the need to discuss and agree upon plans of action is imperative. In this thesis I present work covering both theoretical research and practical development related to the use of argumentation-based dialogues as a way to coordinate actions in multi-agent planning scenarios. The necessity of coordination in multi-agent systems requires the development of mechanisms to propose, modify, share, monitor, and argue about plans. In this thesis I present an argumentation scheme to propose multi-agent plans and associated critical questions to critique the proposal. Such a detailed consideration of multi-agent plan composition contains the right characteristics to enable the justification of plans.This research builds upon research on practical reasoning for action proposals and considers multi-agent plan proposals where plans require several agents for their execution. A dialogue game protocol is also presented which is based on proposal framework. The protocol allows agents to engage in dialogues to agree on and modify plans based on persuasion and deliberation protocols. The detail encompassed by the argumentation scheme and critical questions means that there is a large number of critical questions, and so dialogues may be very lengthy. To overcome this issue, I investigated the issue of strategies for use with this dialogue game in terms of the different possible orderings in which critiques can be posed. The thesis presents an implementation that realises the theoretical framework in terms of a agents engaging in simulated dialogues to share and agree on a plan. The experiments allow us to investigate the effects of such strategies in terms of the number of questions issued to reach an agreement. Overall, the framework presented in this thesis allow agents to engage in dialogues over cooperative plan proposals in a structured way using well-founded argumentative principles