An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues
Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1
A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Modeling Dialogues Using Argumentation
ICMAS '00 Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000)
Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation
Journal of Logic and Computation
Increasing Human-Organ Transplant Availability: Argumentation-Based Agent Deliberation
IEEE Intelligent Systems
CBR and Argument Schemes for Collaborative Decision Making
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Towards formalising agent argumentation over the viability of human organs for transplantation
MICAI'05 Proceedings of the 4th Mexican international conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence
The modular logic of private international law
Artificial Intelligence and Law - Special issue on Deontic Logic and Normative Systems
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
An abstract framework for formalising persuasion dialogues has recently been proposed. The framework provides for a range of speech acts, and protocols of varying levels of flexibility. However, the framework assumes the availability of preference information relevant to determining whether arguments moved in a dialogue defeat each other. However, preference information may only become available after the dialogue has terminated. Hence, in this paper, we describe dialogues conducted under the assumption of an attack relation that does not account for preferences. We then describe how the resultant dialogue graph can be pruned by a preference relation in order to determine whether the winner of the dialogue is still the winner given the newly available preference information. We also describe a class of protocols that account for subsequent pruning by a preference relation, and show that under a restriction on the pruning, if the player defending the dialogue's main topic is winning the dialogue, then (s)he remains the winner irrespective of the preference relation applied.