Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents

Autores
Martínez, Diego C.; García, Alejandro Javier
Año de publicación
2003
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
documento de conferencia
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
A multiagent system (MAS) is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity, cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. Thus, every agent has the ability to do social interactions with other agents establishing dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol [6]. Argumentation is suitable to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems. Some authors are actually using defeasible argumentation to model negotiation processes between agents [3, 7]. Our current research activities are related to the use of argumentation in agent’s interaction, such as negotiation among several participants, persuasion, acquisition of knowledge and other forms of social dialogue. Usually, argumentation appears as a mechanism to deal with disagreement between agents, for example when some conflict of interest is present. Argumentation can be used, not only to argue about something, but to know more about other agents: it is enough powerfull to play an important role in general social interaction in multiagents systems. The kind of arguments used in dialogues, and their relationship, depends on the type of dialogue involved. According to [8], dialogues can be classified in negotiation, where there is a conflict of interests, persuasion where there is a conflict of opinion or beliefs, indagation where there is a need for an explanation or proof of some proposition, deliberation or coordination where there is a need to coordinate goals and actions, and one special kind of dialogue called eristic based on personal conflicts. Except the last one, all these dialogues may exist in multi-agents systems as part of social activities among agents. Our aim is to define an abstract argumentation framework to capture the behaviour of these different dialogues, and we present here the main ideas behind this task and the new formal definitions. We are not interested in the logic used to construct arguments, nor the comparison method used. Our formulation completely abstracts from the internal structure of the arguments, considering them as moves made in a dialogue. We also consider multiagent systems as a set of multiple interacting autonomous agents.
Eje: Inteligencia artificial
Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)
Materia
Ciencias Informáticas
Abstract argumentation
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Intelligent agents
dialogues between agents
Multiagent systems
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
SEDICI (UNLP)
Institución
Universidad Nacional de La Plata
OAI Identificador
oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/21460

id SEDICI_c9315d6e240b3e0e57286a5186b51bfa
oai_identifier_str oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/21460
network_acronym_str SEDICI
repository_id_str 1329
network_name_str SEDICI (UNLP)
spelling Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agentsMartínez, Diego C.García, Alejandro JavierCiencias InformáticasAbstract argumentationARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCEIntelligent agentsdialogues between agentsMultiagent systemsA multiagent system (MAS) is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity, cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. Thus, every agent has the ability to do social interactions with other agents establishing dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol [6]. Argumentation is suitable to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems. Some authors are actually using defeasible argumentation to model negotiation processes between agents [3, 7]. Our current research activities are related to the use of argumentation in agent’s interaction, such as negotiation among several participants, persuasion, acquisition of knowledge and other forms of social dialogue. Usually, argumentation appears as a mechanism to deal with disagreement between agents, for example when some conflict of interest is present. Argumentation can be used, not only to argue about something, but to know more about other agents: it is enough powerfull to play an important role in general social interaction in multiagents systems. The kind of arguments used in dialogues, and their relationship, depends on the type of dialogue involved. According to [8], dialogues can be classified in negotiation, where there is a conflict of interests, persuasion where there is a conflict of opinion or beliefs, indagation where there is a need for an explanation or proof of some proposition, deliberation or coordination where there is a need to coordinate goals and actions, and one special kind of dialogue called eristic based on personal conflicts. Except the last one, all these dialogues may exist in multi-agents systems as part of social activities among agents. Our aim is to define an abstract argumentation framework to capture the behaviour of these different dialogues, and we present here the main ideas behind this task and the new formal definitions. We are not interested in the logic used to construct arguments, nor the comparison method used. Our formulation completely abstracts from the internal structure of the arguments, considering them as moves made in a dialogue. We also consider multiagent systems as a set of multiple interacting autonomous agents.Eje: Inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)2003-05info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObjectinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionObjeto de conferenciahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794info:ar-repo/semantics/documentoDeConferenciaapplication/pdf757-761http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/21460enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)reponame:SEDICI (UNLP)instname:Universidad Nacional de La Platainstacron:UNLP2025-09-29T10:54:38Zoai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/21460Institucionalhttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/Universidad públicaNo correspondehttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/oai/snrdalira@sedici.unlp.edu.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:13292025-09-29 10:54:38.398SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Platafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents
title Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents
spellingShingle Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents
Martínez, Diego C.
Ciencias Informáticas
Abstract argumentation
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Intelligent agents
dialogues between agents
Multiagent systems
title_short Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents
title_full Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents
title_fullStr Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents
title_full_unstemmed Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents
title_sort Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Martínez, Diego C.
García, Alejandro Javier
author Martínez, Diego C.
author_facet Martínez, Diego C.
García, Alejandro Javier
author_role author
author2 García, Alejandro Javier
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Ciencias Informáticas
Abstract argumentation
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Intelligent agents
dialogues between agents
Multiagent systems
topic Ciencias Informáticas
Abstract argumentation
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Intelligent agents
dialogues between agents
Multiagent systems
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv A multiagent system (MAS) is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity, cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. Thus, every agent has the ability to do social interactions with other agents establishing dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol [6]. Argumentation is suitable to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems. Some authors are actually using defeasible argumentation to model negotiation processes between agents [3, 7]. Our current research activities are related to the use of argumentation in agent’s interaction, such as negotiation among several participants, persuasion, acquisition of knowledge and other forms of social dialogue. Usually, argumentation appears as a mechanism to deal with disagreement between agents, for example when some conflict of interest is present. Argumentation can be used, not only to argue about something, but to know more about other agents: it is enough powerfull to play an important role in general social interaction in multiagents systems. The kind of arguments used in dialogues, and their relationship, depends on the type of dialogue involved. According to [8], dialogues can be classified in negotiation, where there is a conflict of interests, persuasion where there is a conflict of opinion or beliefs, indagation where there is a need for an explanation or proof of some proposition, deliberation or coordination where there is a need to coordinate goals and actions, and one special kind of dialogue called eristic based on personal conflicts. Except the last one, all these dialogues may exist in multi-agents systems as part of social activities among agents. Our aim is to define an abstract argumentation framework to capture the behaviour of these different dialogues, and we present here the main ideas behind this task and the new formal definitions. We are not interested in the logic used to construct arguments, nor the comparison method used. Our formulation completely abstracts from the internal structure of the arguments, considering them as moves made in a dialogue. We also consider multiagent systems as a set of multiple interacting autonomous agents.
Eje: Inteligencia artificial
Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)
description A multiagent system (MAS) is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity, cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. Thus, every agent has the ability to do social interactions with other agents establishing dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol [6]. Argumentation is suitable to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems. Some authors are actually using defeasible argumentation to model negotiation processes between agents [3, 7]. Our current research activities are related to the use of argumentation in agent’s interaction, such as negotiation among several participants, persuasion, acquisition of knowledge and other forms of social dialogue. Usually, argumentation appears as a mechanism to deal with disagreement between agents, for example when some conflict of interest is present. Argumentation can be used, not only to argue about something, but to know more about other agents: it is enough powerfull to play an important role in general social interaction in multiagents systems. The kind of arguments used in dialogues, and their relationship, depends on the type of dialogue involved. According to [8], dialogues can be classified in negotiation, where there is a conflict of interests, persuasion where there is a conflict of opinion or beliefs, indagation where there is a need for an explanation or proof of some proposition, deliberation or coordination where there is a need to coordinate goals and actions, and one special kind of dialogue called eristic based on personal conflicts. Except the last one, all these dialogues may exist in multi-agents systems as part of social activities among agents. Our aim is to define an abstract argumentation framework to capture the behaviour of these different dialogues, and we present here the main ideas behind this task and the new formal definitions. We are not interested in the logic used to construct arguments, nor the comparison method used. Our formulation completely abstracts from the internal structure of the arguments, considering them as moves made in a dialogue. We also consider multiagent systems as a set of multiple interacting autonomous agents.
publishDate 2003
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2003-05
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Objeto de conferencia
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794
info:ar-repo/semantics/documentoDeConferencia
format conferenceObject
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/21460
url http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/21460
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
757-761
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:SEDICI (UNLP)
instname:Universidad Nacional de La Plata
instacron:UNLP
reponame_str SEDICI (UNLP)
collection SEDICI (UNLP)
instname_str Universidad Nacional de La Plata
instacron_str UNLP
institution UNLP
repository.name.fl_str_mv SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Plata
repository.mail.fl_str_mv alira@sedici.unlp.edu.ar
_version_ 1844615804530720768
score 13.069144