Argumentation in multi-agent systems: Context and recent developments

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4766 LNAI, Issue , 2007, Pages 1-16

  Maudet, Nicolas ^a   Parsons, Simon ^b   Rahwan, Iyad ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DAUPHINE   (France)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^c THE BRITISH UNIVERSITY IN DUBAI   (United Arab Emirates)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCIENCE; ENGINEERING RESEARCH;

ARGUMENTATION; IDIOSYNCRATIC;

MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

EID: 38549134408     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_1     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (84)

1. Amgoud, L.: A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (cds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 552 563. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
2. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation, In: AAMAS 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, ACM Press, New York (2007)
3. Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI). vol. 3366, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
4. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N.: Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report). In: Benferhat, S., Giunchiglia, E. (eds.) NMR 2002: Special session on Argument, Dialogue and Decision, pp. 399 407 (2002)
5. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Durfce, E. (ed.) ICMAS 1998. Boston MA, USA, pp. 31 38. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)
6. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Horn, W. (ed.) ECAI 2000, pp. 338 342. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands (2000)
7. Aristotle: Topics. In: Ross, W.D. (ed.) Clarendon, Oxford, UK (1928)
8. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 153-171 (2006) Special issue on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
9. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Argument in artificial intelligence and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5(4), 249-261 (1997)
10. Bourgne, G., Hette, G., Maudet, N., Pinson, S.: Hypothesis refinement under topological communication constraints. In: AAMAS-2007, Honolulu, Hawaii (May 2007)
11. Brewka, G.: Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1991)
12. Caminadas, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 121-130. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
13. Cayrol, C., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Handling controversial arguments in bipolar argumentation systems. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 261-272. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
14. Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337-383 (2000)
15. Chesñevar, C.I., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 293-316 (2007)
16. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Marquis, P.: Merging argumentation systems. In: AAAI 2005, Pittsburgh, USA, pp. 614-619. AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (2005)
17. Dignum, F., Dunin-Kȩplicz, B., Berbrugge, R.: Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, pp. 150-166. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
18. Dignum, F., Dunin-Kȩplicz, B., Berbrugge, R.: Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9(2), 289-303 (2001)
19. Doyle, J.: A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence 12, 231-272 (1979)
20. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321-358 (1995)
21. Elhadad, M.: Using argumentation in text generation. Journal of Pragmatics 24, 189-220 (1995)
22. Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P., Fox, J.: Acceptability of arguments as logical uncertainty. In: Moral, S., Kruse, R., Clarke, E. (eds.) ECSQARU 1993. LNCS, vol. 747, pp. 85-90. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
23. Ferguson, G.: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning for Mixed-Initiative Planning. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Rochester, URCS TR 562 (January 1995)
24. Fernández, R., Endriss, U.: Abstract models for dialogue protocols. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(2), 121-140 (2007)
25. FIPA. Communicative Act Library Specification. Technical Report XC00037H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (August 10, 2001)
26. Fox, J., Barber, D., Bardhan, K.D.: Alternatives to Bayes? A quantitative comparison with rule-based diagnostic inference. Methods of Information in Medicine 19, 210-215 (1980)
27. Fox, J., Krause, P., Ambler, S.: Arguments, contradictions and practical reasoning. In: Neumann, B. (ed.) ECAI-1992, Vienna, Austria, pp. 623-627 (1992)
28. Fox, J., Parsons, S.: Arguing about beliefs and actions. In: Hunter, A., Parsons, S. (eds.) Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1455, pp. 266-302. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
29. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, USA (1988)
30. Georgeff, M.P.: Planning. Annual Review of Computer Science 2, 359-400 (1987)
31. Gordon, T.F., Karacapilidis, N.: The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, pp. 10-18. ACM Press, New York (1997)
32. Hamblin, C.L.: Fallacies. Methuen, London, UK (1970)
33. Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: A framework for deliberation dialogues. In: Hansen, H.V., Tindale, C.W., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H. (eds.) OSSA 2001, Ontario, Canada (2001)
34. Horvitz, E.J., Breese, J.S., Henrion, M.: Decision theory in expert systems and artificial intelligence. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 2, 247-302 (1988)
35. Hulstijn, J.: Dialogue models for enquiry and transaction. PhD thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (2000)
36. Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In: Hunter, A., Lang, J. (eds.) NMR 2004, Whistler, Canada (June 2004)
37. Jung, H., Tambe, M.: Towards argumentation as distributed constraint satisfaction. In: Proceedings of AAAI Fall Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (2001)
38. Jung, H., Tambe, M., Kulkami, S.: Argumentation as distributed constraint satisfaction: applications and results. In: Müller, J.P., Andre, E., Sen, S., Frasson, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada, pp. 324-331. ACM Press, New York (2001)
39. Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Rosenschein, J.S., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M., Yokoo, M. (eds.) AAMAS-2003, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 883-890. ACM Press, New York (2003)
40. Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R.: Is it worth arguing? In: Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 234 250. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
41. Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J.: A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11, 113-131 (1995)
42. Loui, R.P.: Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 3, 100-106 (1987)
43. Loui, R.P.: Process and policy: Resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14, 1-38 (1993)
44. Maudet, N., Chaib-draa, B.: Commitment-based and dialogue-game based protocols new trends in agent communication language. Knowledge Engineering Review 17(2), 157-179(2003)
45. Mbarki, M., Bentahar, J., Moulin, B.: Strategic and tactic reasoning for communicating agents. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany (2007)
46. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue game protocols. In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 269- 283. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
47. McBurney, P., van Eijk, R.M., Parsons, S., Amgoud, L.: A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7(3), 235-273 (2003)
48. McCarthy, J.: Circumscription - a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 27-39 (1980)
49. Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: Computing preferred extensions for argumentation systems with sets of attacking arguments. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA 2006, pp. 97-108. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
50. Ontañón, S., Plaza, E.: Arguments and counterexamples in case-based joint deliberation. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany (2007)
51. Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Preece, A.: Loose lips sink ships: A heuristic for argumentation. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany (2007)
52. Parsons, S., Fox, J.: Argumentation and decision making: A position paper. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds.) FAPR 1996. LNCS, vol. 1085, pp. 705-709. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
53. Parsons, S., Green, S.: Argumentation and qualitative decision making. In: Hunter, A., Parsons, S. (eds.) ECSQARU 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1638, pp. 328-339. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
54. Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Sklar, E., Wooldridge, M.: On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues. In: AAMAS-2007, Honolulu, HI (May 2007)
55. Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Wooldridge, M.: Some preliminary steps towards a meta-theory for formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P., Reed, C (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
56. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261-292 (1998)
57. Parsons, S., Sklar, E.: How agents alter their beliefs after an argumentation-based dialogue. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
58. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M. J., Amgoud, L.: On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Rosenschein, J., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M.J, Yokoo, M. (eds.) AAMAS-2003, pp. 616-623. ACM Press, New York (2003)
59. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 347-376 (2003)
60. Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481-518 (1987)
61. Pollock, J.L.: The logical foundations of goal-regression planning in autonomous agents. Artificial Intelligence 106(2), 267-334 (1998)
62. Prakken, H.: On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
63. Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187-219 (2001)
64. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 1009-1040 (2005)
65. Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 163-188 (2006)
66. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.N.: Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp. 32-41. ACM Press, New York (2003)
67. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: a criticial survey. In: Pauli, J. (ed.) Learning-Based Robot Vision. LNCS, vol. 2048, pp. 342-343. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
68. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn. vol. 4, pp. 219-318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands (2002)
69. Rahwan, I.: Interest-based Negotiation in Multi-Agent Systems. PhD thesis, Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (2004)
70. Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, L., Dignum, F.: On the benefits of exploiting underlying goals in argument-based negotiation. In: Holte, R.C, Howe, A. (eds.) AAAI-2007, Menlo Park CA, USA, AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (2007)
71. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D, Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4), 343-375 (2003)
72. Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C.: Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence (to appear, 2007)
73. Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI-agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, San Francisco, USA (1995)
74. Reed, C., Norman, T.J.: Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation. Argumentation Library, vol. 9. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2004)
75. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81-132 (1980)
76. Rueda, S.V., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument-based negotiation among BDI agents. Computer Science & Technology 2(7) (2002)
77. Sadri, F., Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Logic agents, dialogues and negotiation: an abductive approach. In: Stathis, K., Schroeder, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the AISB 2001 Symposium on Information Agents for E-Commerce (2001)
78. Simari, G.R., Garcia, A.J., Capobianco, M.: Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Whistler BC, Canada, pp. 377 384 (2004)
79. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125- 157 (1992)
80. Sycara, K.: The PERSUADER. In: Shapiro, D. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)
81. van Eemcren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.F., Henkemans, F.S.: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Applications. Lawrence Erlbauin Associates, Hillsdale NJ, USA (1996)
82. Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(1-2), 167 195 (2003)
83. Walton, D.N.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbauin, Mahwah, NJ, USA (1996)
84. Wurman, P.R., Wellman, M.P., Walsh, W.E.: A parametrization of the auction design space. Games and Economic Behavior 35(1-2), 304 338 (2001)