Modelling dialogues using argumentation

By Leila Amgoud, N. Maudet, Simon Parsons. Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, 2000

362 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A number of authors have suggested the use of argumentation techniques as the basis for negotiation dialogues between agents. In this paper we augment this work by investigating the use of argumentation as the basis for a wider range of types of dialogue. The approach we take is based upon MacKenzie's dialogue game DC, and we show that a translation of this into our system of argumentation can support a subset of the types of dialogue identified by Walton and Krabbe (1995).

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b1edf488a083938788b8367aa1eeac8bfd177ab4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

Citations in the corpus

Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks (2009, background): “The inherently dialectical nature of these models have provided foundations for formalisation of argumentation-based dialogues [5], where, for example, one agent seeks to persuade another to adopt a belief it does not already hold to be true [33], or when agents deliberate about what actions to…”
Using arguments for making and explaining decisions (2009, background): “Argumentation has also been extensively used for modeling different kinds of dialogues, in particular persuasion (e.g. [5]), and negotiation (e.g. [37]).”
Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation (2005, background): “From the early 1990s the study of argumentation dialogues branched out into two directions: artificial intelligence and law [14, 12, 5, 18, 29] and multi-agent systems [2, 23, 25, 24].”
Argumentation-based negotiation (2003, methodology): “These include: game-theoretic analysis (Kraus, 2001; Rosenschein and Zlotkin, 1994; Sand-holm, 2002b); heuristic-based approaches (Faratin, 2000; Fatima et al., 2002; Kowalczyk and Bui, 2001); and argumentation-based approaches (Kraus et al., 1998; Parsons et al., 1998; Sierra et al., 1998).”
Explanation and Argumentation Capabilities:Towards the Creation of More Persuasive Agents (2002, methodology): “Amgoud et al. (2000) use an argumentation model inspired by Dung’s work (1995) and enhanced with the notion of preference between arguments (Amgoud and Cayrol 2000).”
A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation (2009, background): “Formal argumentation has become a popular approach for purposes varying from nonmonotonic reasoning [2, 7], multi-agent communication [1] and reasoning in the semantic web [23].”
A Relevance-theoretic Framework for Constructing and Deconstructing Enthymemes (2012, background): “information-seeking [Hul00, PWA03]; inquiry [MP01, PWA03, BH07, BH09]; persuasion [ AMP00a , DDV00, ABM05]; negotiation [AMP00b, Hul00, STT01, MEPA02]; deliberation [HMP01]), there are no existing dialogue frameworks that consider the use of implicit claim enthymemes.”
Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results (2011, background): “A similar notion is at the heart of the argumentation systems in [1,2], though here there is a preference order over all an agent’s beliefs, and an argument has a preference level equal to the minimum level of the beliefs from which it is constructed.”
A Grounded Interaction Protocol for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2019, background): “Formal dialogue models have been proposed for different dialogue types [35], such as negotiation dialogues [1], persuasion dialogues [35] and a combination of negotiation and persuasion dialogues [12].”