1 / 63

Argumentation in Agent Systems Part 2: Dialogue

Argumentation in Agent Systems Part 2: Dialogue. Henry Prakken EASSS-07 31-08-2007. Why study argumentation in agent technology?. For internal reasoning of single agents Reasoning about beliefs, goals, intentions etc often is defeasible For interaction between multiple agents

jonah-bentley
Download Presentation

Argumentation in Agent Systems Part 2: Dialogue

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Argumentation in Agent SystemsPart 2:Dialogue Henry Prakken EASSS-07 31-08-2007

  2. Why study argumentation in agent technology? • For internal reasoning of single agents • Reasoning about beliefs, goals, intentions etc often is defeasible • For interaction between multiple agents • Information exchange involves explanation • Collaboration and negotiation involve conflict of opinion and persuasion

  3. Overview • Recent trends in argumentation logics • Argument schemes • Epistemic vs. practical reasoning • Argumentation in dialogue • Dialogue game approach • Types of dialogues • How they involve argumentation • The notion of commitment • Some dialogue systems • Agent behaviour in dialogues • Research issues

  4. Argument schemes: general form • The same as logical inference rules • But also critical questions • Pointers to undercutters Premise 1, … , Premise n Therefore (presumably), conclusion

  5. Statistical syllogism • P and if P then usually Q is a reason to believe that Q • Birds usually fly • Critical question: subproperty defeater? • Conflicting generalisation about an exceptional class • Penguins don’t fly

  6. “Normative syllogism” • P and if P then as a rule Q is a reason to accept that Q • Critical question: are thereexceptions? • How does a lawyer argue for exceptions to a rule? • Say legislation makes an exception • Say it is motivated by the rule’s purpose • Find an overruling principle • Argue that rule application has bad consequences

  7. Witness testimony • Critical questions: • Is W sincere? (veracity) • Did W really see P? (objectivity) • Did P occur? (observational sensitivity) Witness W says P Therefore (presumably), P

  8. Temporal persistence • Critical questions: • Was P known to be false between T1 and T2? • Is the gap between T1 and T2 too long? P is true at T1 and T2 > T1 Therefore (presumably), P is Still true at T2

  9. Arguments from consequences • Critical questions: • Does A also have bad consequences? • Are there other ways to bring about the good consequences? Action A brings about good consequences Therefore (presumably), A should be done

  10. Dialogue Type Dialogue Goal Initial situation Persuasion resolution of conflict conflict of opinion Negotiation making a deal conflict of interest Deliberation reaching a decision need for action Information seeking exchange of information personal ignorance Inquiry growth of knowledge general ignorance Types of dialogues (Walton & Krabbe)

  11. P: I offer you this Peugeot for $10000. P: why do you reject my offer? P: why are French cars no good? P: why are French cars unsafe? P: Meinwagen is biased since German car magazines usually are biased against French cars P: why does Meinwagen have a very high reputation?. P: OK, I accept your offer. O: I reject your offer O: since French cars are no good O: since French cars are unsafe O: since magazine Meinwagen says so O: I concede that German car magazines usually are biased against French cars, butMeinwagen is not since it has a very high reputation. O: OK, I retract that French cars are no good. Still I cannot pay $10.000; I offer $8.000. Example

  12. P: I offer you this Peugeot for $10000. P: why do you reject my offer? P: why are French cars no good? P: why are French cars unsafe? P: Meinwagen is biased since German car magazines usually are biased against French cars P: why does Meinwagen have a very high reputation?. P: OK, I accept your offer. O: I reject your offer O: since French cars are no good O: since French cars are unsafe O: since magazine Meinwagen says so O: I concede that German car magazines usually are biased against French cars, but Meinwagen is not since it has a very high reputation. O: OK, I retract that French cars are no good. Still I cannot pay $10.000; I offer $8.000. Example (2)

  13. P: I offer you this Peugeot for $10000. P: why do you reject my offer? P: why are French cars no good? P: why are French cars unsafe? P: Meinwagen is biased since German car magazines usually are biased against French cars P: why does Meinwagen have a very high reputation?. P: OK, I accept your offer. O: I reject your offer O: since French cars are no good O: since French cars are unsafe O: since magazine Meinwagen says so O: I concede that German car magazines usually are biased against French cars, but Meinwagen is not since it has a very high reputation. O: OK, I retract that French cars are no good. Still I cannot pay $10.000; I offer $8.000. Example (3)

  14. Dialogue systems (according to Carlson 1983) • Dialogue systems define the conditions under which an utterance is appropriate • An utterance is appropriate if it furthers the goal of the dialogue in which it is made • Appropriateness defined not at speech act level but at dialogue level • Dialogue game approach

  15. Dialogue game systems • A dialogue purpose • Participants (with roles) • A communication language Lc • With embedded topic language Lt and a logic for Lt • A protocol for Lc • Effect rules for Lc (“commitment rules”) • Termination and outcome rules

  16. Some history • In philosophy: formal dialectics • (Hamblin 1970, MacKenzie 1979, Walton & Krabbe 1995, …) • Deductive setting • In AI: procedural defeasibility • Loui (1998(1992)), Brewka (1994,2001) • Adding counterarguments • In AI & Law: dispute resolution • (Gordon 1993, Bench-Capon 1998, Lodder 1999, Prakken 2000-2006, …) • Adding counterarguments and third parties • In MAS: agent interaction • Parsons-Sierra-Jennings 1998, Amgoud-Maudet-Parsons 2000, McBurney-Parsons 2002, … • Adding agents

  17. Persuasion • Participants:proponent (P) and opponent (O) of a dialogue topic t • Dialogue goal:resolve the conflict of opinion on t. • Participants’ goals: • P wants O to accept t • O wants P to give up t • Typical speech acts: • Claim p, Concede p, retract p, Why p, p since S, …

  18. Information seeking • Dialogue goal: information exchange • Agent’s goals: learning(?) • Typical speech acts: • Ask p, Tell p, Notell p, …

  19. Negotiation • Dialogue goal: agreement on reallocation of scarce resources • Participants’ goals: maximise individual gain • Typical communication language: • Request p, Offer p, Accept p, Reject p, …

  20. Deliberation • Participants:any • Dialogue goal:resolve need for action • Participants’ goals: • None initially • Possible set of speech acts: • Propose, ask-justify, prefer, accept, reject, …

  21. Dialectical shifts to persuasion • Information exchange: explaining why something is the case or how I know it • Persuasion over fact • Negotiation: explaining why offer is good for you or bad for me • Persuasion over fact or action • Deliberation: explaining why proposal is good or bad for us • Persuasion over fact or action

  22. Commitment in dialogue • Walton & Krabbe (1995): • General case: commitment to action • Special cases: • Commitment to action in dialogue (dialogical or propositional commitment) • Commitment to action outside dialogue (social commitment) • Negotiation and deliberation lead to social commitments • Persuasion leads to dialogical commitments

  23. Quality aspects of dialogue protocols • Effectiveness: does the protocol further the dialogue goal? • Commitments • Agents’ logical and dialogical consistency • Efficiency (relevance, termination, ...) • Fairness: does the protocol respect the participants’ goals? • Flexibility, opportunity, … • Public semantics: can protocol compliance be externally observed?

  24. Effectiveness vs fairness • Relevance and efficiency: moves should be related to the dialogue topic • Relevance often enforced in rigid so efficient “unique-move immediate response” protocols • But sometimes participants must have freedom to backtrack, to explore alternatives, to postpone responses, …

  25. Public semantics:Commitments in persuasion • A participant’s publicly declared standpoints, so not the same as beliefs! • Only commitments and dialogical behaviour should count for move legality: • “Claim p is allowed only if you believe p” vs. • “Claim p is allowed only if you are not committed to p and have not challenged p”

  26. Assertion/Acceptance attitudes • Relative to speaker’s own knowledge! • Confident/Thoughtful agent: can assert/accept P iff he can construct an argument for P • Careful/cautious agent: can assert/accept P iff he can construct an argument for P and no stronger counterargument • Thoughtful/skeptical agent: can assert/accept P iff he can construct a justified argument for P • If part of protocol, then protocol has no public semantics!

  27. Two systems for persuasion dialogue • Parsons, Wooldridge & Amgoud • Journal of Logic and Computation 13(2003) • Prakken • Journal of Logic and Computation 15(2005)

  28. PWA: languages, logic, agents • Lc: Claim p, Why p, Concede p, Claim S, Question p • p  Lt, S  Lt • Lt: propositional • Logic: argumentation logic • Arguments: (S, p) such that • S  Lt, consistent • S propositionally implies p • Attack: (S, p) attacks (S’, p’) iff • p  S’ and • level(S) ≤ level(S’) • Semantics: grounded • Assumptions on agents: • Have a knowledge base KB  Lt • Have an assertion and acceptance attitude

  29. PWA: protocol • W claims p; • B concedes if allowed, if not claims p if allowed or else challenges p • If B claims p, then goto 2 with players’ roles reversed and p in place of p; • If B has challenged, then: • W claims S, an argument for p; • Goto 2 for each s  S in turn. • B concedes if allowed, or the dialogue terminates. • Outcome: do players agree at termination?

  30. Example persuasion dialogue P1: My car is safe. claim P2: Since it has an airbag. argument P3: why does that not make my car safe? challenge P4: Yes, that is what the newspapers say, concession but that does not prove anything, since newspapers are unreliable sources of technological information undercutter P5: OK, I was wrong that my car is safe. retraction O1: Why is your car safe? challenge O2: That is true, concession but your car is still not safe counterclaim O3: Since the newspapers recently reported on airbags exploding without cause rebuttal O4: Still your car is not safe, since its maximum speed is very high. alternative rebuttal

  31. PWA: example dialogue P: careful/cautious P1: claim safe P2: claim {airbag, airbag  safe} P3: claim {airbag  safe} O: thoughtful/cautious O1: why safe O2a: concede airbag O2b: why airbag  safe P: careful/cautious P1: claim safe. P2: whysafe P3a: concede newspaper P3b: why newspaper   safe O: confident/cautious O1: claimsafe O2: claim {newspaper, newspaper   safe} O3: claim {newspaper   safe}

  32. PWA: characteristics • Protocol • multi-move • (almost) unique-reply • Deterministic in Lc • Dialogues • Short (no stepwise construction of arguments, no alternative replies) • Only one side develops arguments • Logic • used for single agent: check attitudes and construct argument

  33. Prakken: languages, logic, agents • Lc: Any, provided it has a reply structure (attacks + surrenders) • Lt: any • Logic: argumentation logic • Arguments: trees of conclusive and/or defeasible inferences • Attack: depends on chosen logic • Semantics: grounded • Assumptions on agents: none.

  34. Acts Attacked by Surrendered by claim p why p concede p why p p since S retract p concede p retract p p since S p’ since S’ why s (s  S) concede (p since S) concede s (s  S) Prakken: example Lc (with reply structure)

  35. Protocol variations • Unique-vs multiple moves per turn • Unique vs. multiple replies • Immediate response or not • …

  36. Prakken: protocols (basic rules) • Each noninitial move replies to some previous move of hearer • Replying moves must be defined in Lc as a reply to their target • Argue moves must respect underlying argumentation logic • Termination: if player to move has no legal moves • Outcome: what is dialogical status of initial move at termination?

  37. Dialogical status of moves • Each move in a dialogue is in or out: • A surrender is out, • An attacker is: • in iff surrendered, else: • in iff all its attacking children are out

  38. P1+ O1- P2- P4+ O2- O3+ P3+

  39. Functions of dialogical status • Can determine winning • Plaintiff wins iff at termination the initial claim is in; defendant wins otherwise • Can determine turntaking • Turn shifts if dialogical status of initial move has changed • Immediate response protocols (Loui 1998) • Can be used in defining relevance

  40. Relevant protocols • A move must reply to a relevant target • A target is relevant if changing its status changes the status of the initial claim • Turn shifts if dialogical status of initial move has changed • Immediate response protocols

  41. P1+ O1- P2- P4+ O2- O3+ P3+

  42. P1+ O1- P2- P4+ O2+ O3+ P3- O4+

  43. P1+ O1- P2- P4+ O2- O3+ P3+

  44. P1- O1+ P2- P4- O2- O3+ O4+ P3+

  45. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe

  46. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe

  47. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe

  48. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe O2a: concede airbag

  49. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe O2b: safe since newspaper, newspaper  safe O2a: concede airbag

  50. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe O2b: safe since newspaper, newspaper  safe O2a: concede airbag P3a: concede newspaper

More Related