Negotiation is essential in settings where autonomous agents have conflicting interests and a desire to cooperate. For this reason, mechanisms in which agents exchange potential agreements according to various rules of interaction have become very popular in recent years as evident, for example, in the auction and mechanism design community. However, a growing body of research is now emerging which points out limitations in such mechanisms and advocates the idea that agents can increase the likelihood and quality of an agreement by exchanging arguments which influence each others ’ states. This community further argues that argument exchange is sometimes essential when various assumptions about agent rationality cannot be satisfied. To this end, in this article, we identify the main research motivations and ambitions behind work in the field. We then provide a conceptual framework through which we outline the core elements and features required by agents engaged in argumentation-based negotiation, as well as the environment that hosts these agents. For each of these elements, we survey and evaluate existing proposed techniques in the literature and highlight the major challenges that need to be addressed if argument-based negotiation research is to reach its full potential.

This paper studies argumentation-based dialogues between agents. It defines a set of locutions by which agents can trade arguments, a set of agent attitudes which relate what arguments an agent can build and what locutions it can make, and a set of protocols by which dialogues can be carried out. The paper then considers some properties of dialogues under the protocols, in particular termination, dialogue outcomes, and complexity, and shows how these relate to the agent attitudes.

A number of protocols based on the formal dialogue games of philosophy have recently been proposed for interactions between autonomous agents. Several of these proposals purport to assist agents engaged in the same types of interactions, such as persuasions and negotiations, and are superficially different. How are we to determine whether or not these proposals are substantially different ? This paper considers this question and explores several alternative definitions of equivalence of protocols.

Communication between agents needs to be flexible enough to encompass together a variety of different aspects such as, conformance to society protocols, private tactics of the individual agents, strategies that reflect different classes of agent types (or personal attitudes) and adaptability to the particular external circumstances at the time when the communication takes place. In this paper we propose an argument-based framework for representing communication theories of agents that can take into account in a uniform way these different aspects. We show how this approach can be used to realize existing types of dialogue strategies and society protocols in a way that facilitates their modular development and extension to make them more flexible in handling different or special circumstances.

Deliberation dialogues occur when two or more participants seek to jointly agree an action or a course of action in some situation. We present the first formal framework for such dialogues, grounding it in a theory of deliberative reasoning from the philosophy of argumentation. We further fully articulate the locutions and rules of a formal dialogue game for this model, so as to specify a protocol for deliberation dialogues. The resulting protocol is suitable for dialogues between computational entities, such as autonomous software agents. To assess our protocol we consider it against various records of human deliberations, against normative principles for the conduct of human dialogues, and with respect to the outcomes produced by dialogues undertaken according to the protocol.

Abstract. Many techniques for coordinating agents require that the agents communicate, and many of the requisite communications need more than the exchange of a few terse illocutions. In other words they require some form of dialogue. This paper discusses one way to create such dialogues, the use of argumentation, and illustrates the use of this approach in the definition of dialogues about joint plans. 1.

Abstract. This paper studies argumentation-based dialogues between agents. It takes a previously defined system by which agents can trade arguments and examines in detail what locutions are passed between agents. This makes it possible to identify finer-grained protocols than has been previously possible, exposing the relationships between different kinds of dialogue, and giving a deeper understanding of how such dialogues could be automated. 1

This paper presents an argumentation based framework to support an agent’s deliberation process for drawing conclusions under a given policy. The argumentative policy of the agent is able to take into account the roles agents can have within a context pertaining to an environment of interaction. The framework uses roles and context to define policy preferences at different levels of deliberation allowing a modular representation of the agent’s knowledge that avoids the need for explicit qualification of the agent’s decision rules. We also employ a simple form of abduction to deal with the incompleteness and evolving nature of the agent’s knowledge of the external environment and illustrate how an agent’s self deliberation can affect the mode of interaction between agents. The high degree of modularity of the framework gives it a simple computational model in which the agent’s deliberation can be naturally implemented. 1

Abstract. Formal dialectic systems have been suggested as a means to model inter-agent communication in multi-agent systems. The formal dialectic systems of Hamblin are practical models for the computational implementation of such a system of argumentative dialogue. This paper introduces a formal framework for the specification of Hamblintype systems that has a range of benefits for theoretical work in the area including: yielding concise sets of clearly defined moves; allowing the moves of both existing and new games to be specified in a consistent manner; facilitating the use of dialectical shifts and dialogue embeddings independent of ruleset; facilitating the investigation of the coupling between sets of moves and dialogue situations; defining the attributes possessed by the general Hamblin-style formal dialectical system and thereby enabling the systematic exploration of the types of moves that these systems might encompass; and facilitating the rapid development of software applications that use formal dialectic to regulate communications. 1

Abstract. Communication between agents needs to be flexible enough to encompass together a variety of different aspects such as, conformance to society protocols, private tactics of the individual agents, strategies that reflect different classes of agent types (or personal attitudes) and adaptability to the particular external circumstances at the time when the communication takes place. In this paper we propose an argument-based framework for representing communication theories of agents that can take into account in a uniform way these different aspects. We show how this approach can be used to realize existing types of dialogue strategies and society protocols in a way that facilitates their modular development and extension to make them more flexible in handling different or special circumstances.