A multi-agent system framework for dialogue games in the group decision-making context

Dialogue games have been applied to various contexts in computer science and artificial intelligence, particularly to define interactions between autonomous software agents. However, in order to implement dialogue games, the developers need to deal with other important details besides what is presented in the model’s definition. This is a complex work, mostly when it is expected that the agents’ interactions correctly represent a human group behavior. In this work, we present a multi-agent system framework specifically designed to facilitate the implementation of dialogue games under the context of group decision-making in which agents interact as the humans do in face-to-face meetings. The proposed framework, named MAS4GDM, encapsulates the JADE framework and provides a layer that allows developers to easily implement their dialogue models without being concerned with some complex implementation details, such as: the communication model, the agents’ life cycle, among others. We ran an experimental evaluation and verified that the proposed framework allows to implement dialogue models in an easier way and abstract the developers from important implementation details that can compromise the application’s success.This work was supported by the GrouPlanner Project (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-29178) and by National Funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within the Projects UID/CEC/00319/2013 and UID/EEA/00760/2013

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

Speech Acts and Burden of Proof in Computational Models of Deliberation Dialogue

We argue that burden of proof (BoP) of the kind present in persuasion does not apply to deliberation. We analyze existing computational models showing that in deliberation agents may answer a critique but there is no violation of the protocol if they choose not to. We propose a norm-­‐‑governed dialogue where BoP in persuasion is modeled as an obligation to respond, and permissions capture the different types of constraint observed in deliberation

Towards Computer Support for Pragma-Dialectical Argumentation Analysis

Computer tools are increasingly used to support the analysis of argumentative texts. Generic support for argumentation analysis is helpful, but catering to the requirements of specific theoretical approaches has additional advantages. Although the pragma-dialectical method of analyzing argumentative texts is widely used, no dedicated computational support tools exist. An outline is presented for the development of such tools, that starts with the formal approximation of the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion

Cooperative Distributed Planning through Argumentation

[EN] This paper addresses the problem of solving a cooperative distributed planning (CDP) task through an argumentation-based model. A CDP task involves building a central plan amongst a set of agents who will contribute differently to the joint task based on their abilities and knowledge. In our approach, planning agents accomplish the CDP task resolution through an argumentation-based model that allows them to exchange partial solutions, express opinions on the adequacy of the agents¿ solutions and adapt their own proposals for the benefit of the overall task. Hence, the construction of the joint plan is coordinated via a deliberation dialogue to decide what course of action should be adopted at each stage of the planning process. In this paper, we highlight the role of argumentation for planning tasks that require a coordinated behaviour for their resolution.Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E.; Sapena Vercher, O.; Torreño Lerma, A. (2010). Cooperative Distributed Planning through Argumentation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence. 4(10):118-136. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/99676S11813641

Confidence in Arguments in Dialogues for Practical Reasoning

For the context of practical reasoning, this paper suggests a method of assessing the level of confidence we should rationally have in arguments. It draws from dialectic which induces the elaboration of reasons for a position and on auditors’ prior knowledge. Accurate assessment depends on evidential standards, on selecting dialogue moves according to their practical and epistemic importance, and on selecting auditors according to their competence and diversity of relevant knowledge

Where is the reasonable? Objectivity and bias of practical argument

The paper offers a theoretical investigation regarding the sources of normativity in practical argument from the following perspective: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I will address this problem by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties. I will argue that given the structure proposed, biased advocacy upholds reasonableness whenever the argumentative activity is adequately designed