Dialogical two-agent decision making with assumption-based argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Much research has been devoted in recent years to argumentationbased decision making. However, less attention has been given to argumentation-based decision making amongst multiple agents. We present a multi-agent decision framework based on Assumptionbased Argumentation. In our model, agents have goals and decisions have attributes which satisfy goals. Our framework supports agents with different goals, candidate decisions, attributes and relations amongst them. Using an existing argumentation-based dialogue framework, we show how two agents can argue towards “good” decisions in a distributed manner. We show that, under specific conditions, “good” decisions correspond to (1) admissible arguments for the two agents and (2) claims of successful dialogues between the two agents. Thus, this work connects decision making with multi-agent argumentation and dialogues.
منابع مشابه
Multi-Agent Decision Making with Assumption-based Argumentation
Much research has been devoted in recent years to argumentationbased decision making. However, less attention has been given to argumentation-based decision making amongst multiple agents. We present a multi-agent decision framework based on Assumptionbased Argumentation. In our model, agents have goals and decisions have attributes which satisfy goals. Our framework supports agents with differ...
متن کاملConflict resolution with argumentation dialogues
Conflicts exist in multi-agent systems for a number of reasons: agents have different interests and desires; agents hold different beliefs; agents make different assumptions. To resolve conflicts, agents need to better convey information to each other and facilitate fair negotiations yielding jointly agreeable outcomes. We present a two-agent, dialogical conflict resolution scheme developed wit...
متن کاملArgumentation Strategies for Task Delegation
What argument(s) do I put forward in order to persuade another agent to do something for me? This is an important question for an autonomous agent collaborating with others to solve a problem. How effective were similar arguments in convincing similar agents in similar circumstances? What are the risks associated with putting certain arguments forward? Can agents exploit evidence derived from p...
متن کاملArgumentation strategies for plan resourcing
What do I need to say to convince you to do something? This is an important question for an autonomous agent deciding whom to approach for a resource or for an action to be done. Were similar requests granted from similar agents in similar circumstances? What arguments were most persuasive? What are the costs involved in putting certain arguments forward? In this paper we present an agent decis...
متن کاملRelations between two qualities of collaborative dialogue: knowledge co-elaboration and affective regulation
I present aspects of an analytical model of collaboration processes, focusing on types of dialogical thinking and their relations with the interactive circulation and regulation of affect. Types of dialogical thinking are extensional, accumulative, foundational thinking, together with interactive meaning-making. Their occurrences in argumentation dialogue are discussed in relation to affect.
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2014