Update and Abstract Plan

I haven't posted for a month so I thought I would do a quick update. I spent the previous two weeks setting up and playing with Jade and CaSAPI, and will be spending this week reading up on and playing with Jason.

As for an abstract plan of what I want to achieve, here it goes:

The plan is to present a framework that allows for agents to negotiate, primarily in resource re-allocation settings, making use of ideas from argumentation. This will involve (i) defining the agent mind, i.e. the internal reasoning of the agents; (ii) defining dialogue protocols that allow for argumentative negotiation between agents; (iii) defining strategies/policies that allow agents to generate moves and participate in accordance to the dialogue protocols; (iv) detailing the properties and results of the framework, and testing the hypothesis "argumentation allows for better deals to be reached, more efficiently, than negotiation that does not make use of argumentation".

42, Using Enthymemes in an Inquiry Dialogue System

Contents of 'Using Enthymemes in an Inquiry Dialogue System' (2008), by Eilzabeth Black and Anthony Hunter

... Here we investigate the use of enthymemes in inquiry dialogues. For this, we propose a generative inquiry dialogue system and show how, in this dialogue system, enthymemes can be managed by the agents involved, and how common knowledge can evolve through dialogue.

Introduction

... Here, we adapt and integrate [previous] proposals in order to define a new framework for generating inquiry dialogues that use enthymemes. The agents involved can send and receive enthymemes, they can query the other agent if they do not understand an enthymeme they have received, and they can update their perception of what can be used as common knowledge based on the information exchanged during the dialogue.

Logical Arguments

Enthymemes

Representing Dialogues

Generating Dialogues

Properties of Dialogue System

Conclusions

41, Real Arguments are Approximate Arguments

Contents of 'Real Arguments are Approximate Arguments' (2007) by Anthony Hunter

... real arguments (i.e. arguments presented by humans) usually do not have enough explicitly presented premises for the entailment of the claim. This is because there is some common knowledge that can be assumed by a proponent of an argument and the recipient of it. This allows the proponent of an argument to encode an argument into a real argument by ignoring the common knowledge, and it allows a recipient of a real argument to decode it into an argument by drawing on the common knowledge. If both the proponent and recipient use the same common knowledge, then this process is straightforward. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and raises the need for an approximation of the notion of an argument for the recipient to cope with the disparities between the different views on what constitutes common knowledge.

Introduction

... Real arguments (i.e. those presented by people in general) are normally enthymemes... An enthymeme only explicitly represents some of the premises for entailing its claim...

Logical Argumentation

Approximate Arguments

Framework for Real Arguments

Generalizing Argument Trees

Sequences of Real Arguments

Decoding Enthymemes

Quality of Enthymemes

Discussion

debatepedia.com

A more informative, objective and academic approach to online debate and argumentation, imposing greater structure and rules on contributors and contributions. Check it out here.

convinceme.net

Great idea and setup for fun competitive online arguing and debating, based on taking sides, voting and points accumulation. Check it out here.

40, The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion

Contents of 'The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion' (2001), by Erik C. W. Krabbe

In many contexts a retraction of commitment is frowned upon... But on the other hand, the very goal of critical discussion - resolution of a dispute - involves a retraction, either of doubt, or of some expressed point of view...

1, The Problem

2, Ingredients for a Solution

(i) Among the rules of dialogue there must be a number of retraction rules that determine, in each dialogical situation, which retractions are permissible...

(ii) If a retraction is permissible the rule should stipulate what, exactly, are the consequences of the retraction...

(iii) ... there must be different stipulations for different types of dialogue.

(iv) ... Retraction rules should take into account the type of persuasion dialogue in which they are to function...

(v) Even within one type of dialogue, there is a need for distinct retraction rules for each type of commitment that occurs within dialogues of that type...

(vi) Another distinction between types of commitment is that between light-side and dark-side commitments...

(vii) ... have a number of different models of dialogue for different types and situations...

(viii) ... it is advisable, in model construction, to make retraction just a bit costly. As was noted above, one might stipulate that retractions lead to further retractions...

3, A Survey of Commitment Types and Constraints on Retraction
- Assertions
- Concessions (Presumptions, Fixed Concessions, Free Concessions)

4, On how to run the hare and hunt with the hounds

39, The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue

Contents of 'The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue' (2007), Peter McBurney, David Hitchcock, Simon Parsons

"Deliberation dialogues occur when two or more participants seek to jointly agree on an action or a course of action in some situation..."

1, Introduction

2, Deliberation Dialogues

3, A Formal Model of Deliberations

The following types of sentences are defined: Actions, Goals, Constraints, Perspectives, Facts, Evaluations

The presented formal dialogue model consists of eight stages: Open, Inform, Propose, Consider, Revise, Recommend, Confirm, Close

4, Locutions for a Deliberation Dialogue Protocol

The permissible locutions in the dialogue game are as follows: open_dialogue, enter_dialogue, propose, assert, prefer, ask_justify, move, reject, retract, withdraw_dialogue

5, Example

6, Assessment of the DDF Protocol: Human Dialogues, Deliberation Process, Deliberation Outcomes

7, Discussion: Contribution, Related Work, Future Research

8, Appendix: Axiomatic Semantics