F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9:145--158, 2001.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....such as that in legal domains [24] and for the task of software specification [10] Recently, dialogue game formalisms have been proposed as protocols for interaction between autonomous software agents. In this domain, such protocols have been proposed for agent dialogues involving: persuasion [1, 8, 9]; joint inquiry [18] negotiations over the division of scarce resources [4, 22, 30] deliberations over a course of action [16] and discovery of rare events [17] As can be seen from this list of citations, more than one dialogue game protocol has sometimes been proposed for the same type of ....

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305--319, 2001.

....resources, while the contents for the other four locutions are any of the six locutions. In addition, the locution justify allows the utterance of some support for a previous locution. The dialogue game protocols presented in the work of Frank Dignum, Barbara Dunin K eplicz and Rineke Verbrugge [12, 13] are intended to enable agents to form teams and to agree joint intentions, respectively. For both protocols, the authors assume that one agent, an initiator or proponent, seeks to persuade others (opponents) to join a team, and that another initiator (possibly the same agent) seeks to persuade ....

....to prove a proposition, and one seeking to disprove it. Unfortunately, the authors do not specify their team formation dialogue game models completely, for example, nowhere stating the set of locutions available to the participating agents. The protocol for joint intention formation dialogues [13] includes seven locutions: statement, question, challenge, challenge withstatement, question with statement and nal remarks ; these last include: quit and won. The statements associated with challenges and questions may be concessions made by the speaker. The protocol for team formation ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305-319, 2001.

.... of computer science and artificial intelligence: for the specification of software systems with multiple stakeholders [16] for the design of man machine interfaces [8, 30] for the analysis of complex human reasoning [54] and for the design of interaction protocols for autonomous software agents [4, 12, 42]. A dialogue game may be specified by listing the legal locutions, together with the rules which govern their use, and the commencement and termination of dialogues [44] In this Section, we present only the locutions, and not also the necessary preconditions for, and the consequences of, their ....

....of deliberation dialogue we have presented here is not limited in this way. Other work in AI has also come close to developing a formal model of deliberation dialogues without yet doing so. The dialogue game protocols proposed for developing collective intention by Frank Dignum and his colleagues [11, 12], assume, like the research in AI Planning, that the overall goal of the participating agents is predetermined. Moreover, these authors assume that one agent, an Initiator, undertakes a persuasion dialogue to convince the others to adopt some joint intention it has adopted. Although the task is a ....

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305--319, 2001.

....of a purchase dialogue. Hulstijn [22] also proposes a dialogue game model for information seeking dialogues, where one participant requests information from another. Other applications of dialogue games to designing systems for agent dialogues have included the work of Frank Dignum and colleagues [6, 7], in which agents seeking to form teams to undertake some joint task engage in persuasion and negotiation dialogues, and the work of several of the present authors and their colleagues treating negotiation dialogues [1, 2] discovery dialogues [36] and deliberation dialogues [21] Because most ....

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305-319, 2001.

....formal dialogue games as protocols for interaction between between autonomous software entities, known as agents, as a means to enable automated dialogues. This research has led to dialogue game models for various forms of Information seeking dialogues [40] Inquiries [51] Persuasion dialogues [2, 17], Negotiations [4, 40, 65] and Deliberation dialogues [37] To apply dialogue game models to the error bounds selection problem, we will first require formal models of the relevant scientific and regulatory discourses, and then dialogue game models of each of the component discourses. In the ....

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305--319, 2001.

.... communications protocols between autonomous software agents, including for agents engaged in: negotiation dialogues, in which participating agents seek to agree a division of some scarce resource [3, 17, 27, 30] persuasion dialogues, where one agent seeks to persuade another to endorse some claim [2, 7, 8]; information seeking dialogues, where one agent seeks the answer to some question from another [17] inquiry dialogues, where several agents Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not ....

....of a negotiation dialogue. For example, this protocol does not permit the making of tentative suggestions propositions uttered for which the speaker does not yet have an argument. 3. 2 A persuasion dialogue We next consider the protocol proposed by Dignum, Dunin Keplicz and Verbrugge [8] for the creation of collective intention by a team of agents. The protocol assumes that a team has already been formed, and that one agent, an initiator or proponent, seeks to persuade others (opponents) in the team to adopt a group belief or intention. For this dialogue, the authors adapt the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305--319, 2001.

....such as that in legal domains [21] and for the task of software specification [9] Recently, dialogue game formalisms have been proposed as protocols for interaction between autonomous software agents. In this domain, such protocols have been proposed for agent dialogues involving: persuasion [1, 7, 8]; joint inquiry [17] negotiations over the division of scarce resources [4, 20, 27] deliberations over a course of action [15] and discovery of rare events [16] As can be seen from this list of citations, more than one dialogue game protocol has sometimes been proposed for the same type of ....

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305--319, 2001.

.... for communications protocols between autonomous software agents, including for agents engaged in: negotiation dialogues, where participating agents seek to agree a division of some scarce resource [3, 15, 27] persuasion dialogues, where one agent seeks to persuade another to endorse some claim [2, 5, 6]; information seeking dialogues, where one agent seeks the answer to some question from another [15] inPermission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or ....

....of a negotiation dialogue. For example, this protocol does not permit the making of tentative suggestions propositions uttered for which the speaker does not yet have an argument. 3. 2 A persuasion dialogue We next consider the protocol proposed by Dignum, Dunin Keplicz and Verbrugge [6] for the creation of collective intention by a team of agents. The protocol assumes that a team has already been formed, and that one agent, an initiator or proponent, seeks to persuade others (opponents) in the team to adopt a group belief or intention. For this dialogue, the authors adapt the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305--319, 2001.

....rule structure of dialogue games, and are not intended to be implemented as interaction protocols. In the multi agent systems arena, dialogue games have been proposed as the basis for protocols for several types of agent interactions, including: the formation of teams and collective intention [4, 5]; information seeking dialogues [14] persuasion dialogues [22] negotiations [2, 24, 28] joint deliberations over possible actions [12] and joint determination of uncertain beliefs [22] 1 As an example, we list below the nine locutions in a protocol for deliberation over possible actions we ....

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305-319, 2001.

.... Examples of dialogue game agent protocols include systems for: teamformation [9] information seeking dialogues, where one agent seeks the answer to a question from others believed to know it [23] persuasion dialogues, where one agent seeks to persuade another to adopt some statement [10, 34]; negotiation dialogues, where agents discuss how to divide some scarce resource [2, 3, 36, 46] deliberation dialogues, where agents collaborate to decide a course of action in some situation [22] and chance discovery dialogues, such as identification of risks or opportunities, where agents ....

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305--319, 2001.

....of a purchase dialogue. Hulstijn [22] also proposes a dialogue game model for information seeking dialogues, where one participant requests information from another. Other applications of dialoguegames to designing systems for agent dialogues have included the work of Frank Dignum and colleagues [6, 7], in which agents seeking to form teams to undertake some joint task engage in persuasion and negotiation dialogues, and the work of several of the present authors and their colleagues treating negotiation dialogues [1, 2] discovery dialogues [37] and deliberation dialogues [21] Because most ....

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305--319, 2001.

No context found.

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9:145--158, 2001.

No context found.

Dignum, F., Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Creating Collective Intention through Dialogue, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9, 2001, 145--158.

No context found.

Dignum, F., Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Creating Collective Intention through Dialogue, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9, 2001, 145--158.

.... commitment strategies, addressing the question: when and how can an agent responsibly drop its intention or commitment One answer to this question is discussed in [19] The collective level is apparently much more complex; our approach to collective commitments can be found in [9, 10] while in [7, 11] the role of dialogue in teamwork is investigated. In our framework an agent s pro activeness and reactiveness are implicitly or explicitly involved on consecutive stages of the recon guration algorithm [10] The formal speci cation of these situations will be given in a forthcoming paper summing ....

....starts from goals. As the agent may have many di erent objectives, its goals need not be consistent with each other. Then, the agent chooses a limited number of its goals to be intentions. It is not the main focus of this paper to discuss how intentions are formed from a set of goals (but see [7, 6]) However, goals and their relation with intentions form an important part of BDI theory, so goals are rst class citizens in our system. In any case, we assume that intentions are chosen in such a way that consistency is preserved. Thus for intentions we assume, as Rao and George do, that they ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. In J. Cunningham and D. Gabbay, editors, Proceedings International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (FAPR 2000), pages 145-158, London, 2000. Imperial College.

....in order to revise their motivational and informational attitudes. This information 6 might be divulged to all agents by using a broadcast message of a stating the formal outcome of this stage. For more in depth analysis of the speech acts that occur in these information seeking dialogues, see [1, 2]. Level 2: the team formation level Suppose that agent a sees the potential for cooperation in order to achieve . Somewhat di erent from [16] we nd that during the team formation stage agent a attempts to bring it about in some group G that the group has the collective intention to make the ....

....with respect to informational attitudes, bargaining may be appropriate within a persuasion dialogue with respect to motivational attitudes. For example, during team formation potential team members may be reasonably persuaded using an embedded negotiation about return favors from agent a. In [1, 2], a detailed analysis of the persuasion dialogue during team formation is given, including formal rules in terms of speech acts. When all the individual motivational attitudes are established within the team, the initiator broadcasts the fact E INTG ( E INTG(E INTG ( by which the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. In J. Cunningham en D. Gabbay (eds.), Proceedings International Conference on 13 Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (FAPR 2000.

....even though it has different inconsistent goals. Thus, in contrast to Rao and Georgeff we adopt the basic system # # for goals. Then, the agent chooses a limited number of these goals to be intentions. In this paper we do not discuss how intentions are formed from a set of goals (but see [10, 8]) In any case, we assume that intentions are chosen in such a way that consistency is preserved. Thus for intentions we assume, as Rao and Georgeff do, that they should be consistent. This can be formulated as follows: A6 # ####### ## for # ###### ## (Intention Consistency Axiom) Nevertheless, ....

....are defined in subsection 4.1 for the standard context and in subsection 4.2 for less ideal circumstances. A team exists as long as the collective intention between team members exists. However in this paper we abstract from the ways in which teams are formed, and refer the interested reader to [5, 9, 10, 25, 38]. As a reminder, in our approach collective intention is viewed as an inspiration for the creation of collective commitment leading directly to action execution. This is based on the linguistic tradition that intentions typically ultimately lead to actions, however, the immediate triggers of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Dignum, F., Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Creating Collective Intention through Dialogue, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9, 2001, 145--158.

....to different teamwork types occurring in practice is presented and discussed. Apparently, the entire spectrum of possibilities is much wider, due to the number of possibly independent choices to be made. This work fits into a research program developed for a couple of years already (compare [8, 7, 11, 9, 10, 12]) It is based on a lot of previous research, extending and enhancing these results. When investigating the group activity during teamwork, crucial ingredients constituting together collective commitment are first isolated and then discussed in depth. This process resulted in a formal theory of ....

....to a given social plan, and then allocated to the team members, as reflected in social commitments between pairs of agents. Note that in this paper we do not consider the dynamics of individual intention and social com mitment adoption, nor the cognitive and social processes involved (but see [6, 7, 3]) Also we forego the important aspects of causality and obligation here. We instead aim to define complex social and collective motivational and epistemic attitudes in terms of simpler individual ones. The rest of the paper is structured in the following way. In section 2, a short reminder is ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-K9plicz , and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9:145-158, 2001.

....discussed and compared with others in [8] in which soundness and completeness with respect to an appropriate semantics are shown. Let us remark that, even though C INT# (#) seems to be an in nite concept, collective intentions may be established in practice in a nite number of steps (see [4]) A provable property of collectiveintentions relevantinthe present context is that the team has positiveintrospection about its collectiveintentions: C INT# (#) # C BEL#(C INT# (#) # 3.2 Collective commitments Inspired by [1] we treat collective commitment as the strongest motivational ....

....will not be decomposed further in this paper. In fact, they are rather complex team level actions, depending on the context and the application domain, as well as communication and coordination protocols between agents. For the rst two stages of potential recognition and team formation, in [4] we show a re nementof these actions for a relatively exible communication protocol based on dialogue theory. In the present general context, we are mainly interested in the results of the level associated actions. Next follows the phase of means end analysis determining means realizing ends, ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collectiveintention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9:145-158, 2001.

....[16] The dialogue theory tries to give rules for appropriate moves within di erent types of dialogues. The rules direct the dialogue without completely xing the order of the moves. The overall goal of this paper is to give a rst account of team formation by means of dialogue. In the next paper [3], we give a generic account of team formation. In [7] a general framework is developed for using dialogues in collective problem solving ( 6] In this framework four stages are distinguished inspired by [17] The rst stage is potential recognition. In this stage the agent that takes the ....

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Keplicz and R. Verbrugge. Creating Collective Intention through Dialogue. Technical Report of Cognitive Science and Engineering, TCW-

No context found.

#,pages 141#156,Boston, 2000. #9# F. Dignum,B. Dunin-Keplicz,and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. In J. Cunningham and D. Gabbay, editors, Proceedings International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning #FAPR 2000#,pages 145#158, London,2000. Imperial College.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC