In this paper we consider persuasion in the context of practical reasoning, and discuss the problems associated with construing reasoning about actions in a manner similar to reasoning about beliefs. We propose a perspective on practical reasoning as presumptive justification of a course of action, along with critical questions of this justification, building on the account of Walton. From this perspective, we articulate an interaction protocol, which we call PARMA, for dialogues over proposed actions based on this theory. We outline (...) an axiomatic semantics for the PARMA Protocol, and discuss two implementations which use this protocol to mediate a discussion between humans. We then show how our proposal can be made computational within the framework of agents based on the Belief-Desire-Intention model, and illustrate this proposal with an example debate within a multi agent system. (shrink)

Trust is a natural mechanism by which an autonomous party, an agent, can deal with the inherent uncertainty regarding the behaviours of other parties and the uncertainty in the information it shares with those parties. Trust is thus crucial in any decentralised system. This paper builds on recent efforts to use argumentation to reason about trust. Specifically, a set of schemes is provided, and abstract patterns of reasoning that apply in multiple situations geared towards trust. Schemes are described in which (...) one agent, A, can establish arguments for trusting another agent, B, directly, as well as schemes that A can use to construct arguments for trusting C, where C is trusted by B. For both sets of schemes, a set of critical questions is offered that identify the situations in which these schemes can fail. (shrink)

Formal dialogue games have been studied in philosophy since at least the time of Aristotle. Recently they have been applied in various contexts in computer science and artificial intelligence, particularly as the basis for interaction between autonomous software agents. We review these applications and discuss the many open research questions and challenges at this exciting interface between philosophy and computer science.

The task of data collection is becoming routine in many disciplines and this results in increased availability of data. This routinely collected data provides a valuable opportunity for analysis with a view to support evidence based decision making. In order to confidently leverage the data in support of decision making the most appropriate statistical method needs to be selected, and this can be difficult for an end user not trained in statistics. This paper outlines an application of argumentation to support (...) the analysis of clinical data, that uses Extended Argumentation Frameworks in order to reason with the meta-level arguments derived from preference contexts relevant to the data and the analysis objective of the end user. We outline a formalisation of the argument scheme for statistical model selection, its critical questions and the structure of the knowledge base required to support the instantiation of the arguments and meta-level arguments through the use of Z notation. This paper also describes the prototype implementation of argumentation for statistical model selection based on the Z specification outlined herein. (shrink)

In multi-agent systems (MAS), abstract argumentation and argumentation schemes are increasingly important. To be useful for MAS, argumentation schemes require a computational approach so that agents can use the components of a scheme to construct and present arguments and counterarguments. This paper proposes a syntactic analysis that integrates argumentation schemes with abstract argumentation. Schemes can be analysed into the roles that propositions play in each scheme and the structure of the associated propositions, yielding a greater understanding of the schemes, a (...) uniform method of analysis, and a systematic means to relate one scheme to another. This analysis of the schemes helps to clarify what is needed to provide denotations of the terms and predicates in a semantic model. (shrink)

Firewalls are an important tool in the assurance of network security. Packet filtering firewalls are configured by providing a set of rules that identify how to handle individual data packets that arrive at the firewall. In large firewall configurations, conflicts may arise between these rules. Argumentation provides a way of handling conflicts such that their origin is illuminated, and hence can help a system administrator understand the effects of a given configuration. To show how argumentation might help in this domain (...) we examine the use of a system of metalevel argumentation for firewall configuration, showing how it makes conflicts and their origins clear, and showing how different instantiations of a metalevel argumentation system provide alternative ways to resolve conflicts. (shrink)

Models of deliberative dialogue are fundamental for developing autonomous systems that support human practical reasoning. The question discussed in this paper is whether existing models are able to capture the complexity and richness of natural deliberation. In real-world contexts, circumstances relevant to the decision can change rapidly. We reflect on today’s leading model of deliberation dialogue and we propose an extension to capture how newly exchanged information about changing circumstances may shape the dialogue. Moreover, in natural deliberation, a dialogue may (...) be successful even if a decision on what to do has not been made. A set of criteria is proposed to address the problem of when to close off the practical reasoning phase of dialogue. We discuss some measures for evaluating the success of a dialogue after closure and we present some initial efforts to introduce the new deliberation features within an existing model of agent dialogue. We believe that our extended model of dialogue may contribute to representing that richness of natural deliberative dialogue that is yet to be addressed in existing models of agent deliberation. (shrink)

There are many benefits of using argumentation-based techniques in multi-agent systems, as clearly shown in the literature. Such benefits come not only from the expressiveness that argumentation-based techniques bring to agent communication but also from the reasoning and decision-making capabilities under conditions of conflicting and uncertain information that argumentation enables for autonomous agents. When developing multi-agent applications in which argumentation will be used to improve agent communication and reasoning, argumentation schemes are useful in addressing the requirements of the application domain (...) in regards to argumentation. In this work, we propose an argumentation framework that takes into account the particular structure of argumentation schemes at its core. This paper formally defines such a framework and experimentally evaluates its implementation for both argumentation-based reasoning and dialogues. (shrink)

Advancements and deployments of AI-based systems, especially Deep Learning-driven generative language models, have accomplished impressive results over the past few years. Nevertheless, these remarkable achievements are intertwined with a related fear that such technologies might lead to a general relinquishing of our lives’s control to AIs. This concern, which also motivates the increasing interest in the eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) research field, is mostly caused by the opacity of the output of deep learning systems and the way that it is (...) generated, which is largely obscure to laypeople. A dialectical interaction with such systems may enhance the users’ understanding and build a more robust trust towards AI. Commonly employed as specific formalisms for modelling intra-agent communications, dialogue games prove to be useful tools to rely upon when dealing with user’s explanation needs. The literature already offers some dialectical protocols that expressly handle explanations and their delivery. This paper fully formalises the novel Explanation–Question–Response (EQR) dialogue and its properties, whose main purpose is to provide satisfactory information (i.e., justified according to argumentative semantics) whilst ensuring a simplified protocol, in comparison with other existing approaches, for humans and artificial agents. (shrink)

In this paper 1 1 This is a version of a paper originally presented at ArgMAS 2014. we address some limitations with proposals concerning an argumentation scheme for practical reasoning grounded on action-based alternating transition systems augmented with values. In particular, we extend the machinery to enable the proper representation of, and ability to reason with, goals. This allows the more satisfactory representation of certain critical questions, and the means to explicitly record differences between agents as to what will count (...) as the fulfillment of goals and the promotion of values. It also allows us to express desires in terms of values, and to make plain the relation between a change in circumstances and the promotion and demotion of values. Three detailed examples are used to illustrate the additional kinds of problem the extensions allow us to consider. (shrink)

The importance of negotiation has increased in the last years as a relevant interaction to solve conflicts in multi-agent systems. Although there are many different scenarios, a typical negotiating situation involves two cooperative agents that cannot reach their goals by themselves because they do not have some resources needed to reach such goals. Therefore, a way to improve their mutual benefit is to start a negotiation dialogue, taking into account that they might have incomplete or incorrect beliefs about the other (...) agent’s goals and resources. The exchange of arguments during the negotiation gives them information that makes it possible to update their beliefs and consequently they can offer proposals which are closer for reaching a deal. In order to formalize their proposals in a negotiation setting, the agents must be able to generate, select and evaluate arguments associated with such offers, updating their mental state accordingly. We situate our work on this kind of scenarios with two argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision operations in the generation and interpretation of arguments. It has been proved that those agents that take advantage of belief revision during the negotiation achieve an overall better performance. Because the belief revision process depends on the information the agents exchange in their utterances, in this paper we focus on different communication strategies the agents may implement and the impact that they have in the negotiation process. For this purpose, we present a negotiation protocol where the messages are extended to include a critique to the last proposal received and a counterproposal. Also, we define proposals that may be more or less informative containing different justifications. An intentional agent architecture is proposed and following this model different kind of negotiating agents are created using diverse communication strategies. To assess the impact these strategies have in the negotiation process some simulations are conducted, analyzing the results obtained. (shrink)

We present a generic denotational semantic framework for protocols for dialogs between rational and autonomous agents over action which allows for retraction and revocation of proposals for action. The semantic framework views participants in a deliberation dialog as jointly and incrementally manipulating the contents of shared spaces of action-intention tokens. The framework extends prior work by decoupling the identity of an agent who first articulates a proposal for action from the identity of any agent then empowered to retract or revoke (...) the proposal, thereby permitting proposals, entreaties, commands, promises, etc., to be distinguished semantically. (shrink)

In this article, we present a proposal to enable agents to discuss the suitability of plans based on an argumentation scheme and associated critical questions. Agents coordinate their beliefs, intentions and preferences using a dialogue game based on this argumentation scheme and its critical questions. The detail encompassed by the argumentation scheme means that there is a large number of critical questions, and so dialogues may in principle be very lengthy. To improve the efficiency of dialogues, we present two strategies (...) for selecting questions. We have implemented the system and, here, presented results showing how both strategies are effective in reducing the number of questions required to reach agreement, although their relative effectiveness is dependent on characteristics of the problem domain. (shrink)

We present a logic-based formalism for modeling ofdialogues between intelligent and autonomous software agents,building on a theory of abstract dialogue games which we present.The formalism enables representation of complex dialogues assequences of moves in a combination of dialogue games, and allowsdialogues to be embedded inside one another. The formalism iscomputational and its modular nature enables different types ofdialogues to be represented.

Governments and other groups interested in the views of citizens require the means to present justifications of proposed actions, and the means to solicit public opinion concerning these justifications. Although Internet technologies provide the means for such dialogues, system designers usually face a choice between allowing unstructured dialogues, through, for example, bulletin boards, or requiring citizens to acquire a knowledge of some argumentation schema or theory, as in, for example, ZENO. Both of these options present usability problems. In this paper, (...) we describe an implemented system called PARMENIDES which allows structured argument over a proposed course of action, without requiring knowledge of the underlying argumentation theory. (shrink)

Recent proposals for computer-assisted argumentation have drawn on dialectical models of argumentation. When used to assist public policy planning, such systems also raise questions of political legitimacy. Drawing on deliberative democratic theory, we elaborate normative criteria for deliberative legitimacy and illustrate their use for assessing two argumentation systems. Full assessment of such systems requires experiments in which system designers draw on expertise from the social sciences and enter into the policy deliberation itself at the level of participants.

An MBA course has recently been introduced in the Department of Business Studies at the University of Zimbabwe. Applications for the course are numerous, so selection can be very rigorous. Thus the students admitted to the course comprise many of the country's most promising junior managers. As an assignment for a course on business ethics, the students were asked to discuss an ethical problem they had met in the course of business. An analysis of the problems discussed is quite revealing. (...) Besides several miscellaneous issues, the problems discussed focussed on sexual harrassment, nepotism, political pressure and particularly public corruption. The emphasis on public corruption is probably explicable in terms of the particular individuals admitted to the MBA course; it should not be explained by claiming that Zimbabwe is just one more corrupt third world country. Most surprising is the total absence of any problems relating to issues of race or to trading with South Africa, which might have been considered the major ethical issues in Zimbabwe business life. The lack of problems relating to these two issues is more difficult to explain. (shrink)