Learn More
The majority of existing work on agent dialogues considers negotiation, persuasion or deliberation dialogues; we focus on inquiry dialogues, which allow agents to collaborate in order to find new knowledge. We present a general framework for representing dialogues and give the details necessary to generate two subtypes of inquiry dialogue that we define:(More)
It is often the case that agents within a system have distinct types of knowledge. Furthermore, whilst common goals may be agreed upon, the particular representations of the individual agents' views of the world that they operate within may not always match. In this paper we provide a framework to allow different agents with different expertise to make(More)
We take a simple form of non-adversarial persuasion dialogue in which one participant (the persuader) aims to convince the other (the responder) to accept the topic of the dialogue by asserting sets of beliefs. The responder replies honestly to indicate whether it finds the topic to be acceptable (we make no prescription as to what formalism and semantics(More)
The majority of existing work on agent dialogues considers negotiation, persuasion or deliberation dialogues. We focus on inquiry dialogues that allow two agents to share knowledge in order to construct an argument for a specific claim. Inquiry dialogues are particularly useful in cooperative domains such as healthcare, and can be embedded within other(More)
Current approaches to modelling plans and processes in AI are limited by current understanding of "goals" and "intentions". We discuss this question in a medical context, viewing goals as clinical objectives and plans and processes as collections of tasks to achieve those objectives. The specific context for this discussion is the CREDO project, which aims(More)
Logic-based argumentation offers an approach to querying and revising multiple ontologies that are inconsistent or incoherent. A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a pair Φ, α where Φ is a minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. Using dialogue games, agents (each with its(More)
A strategy is used by a participant in a persuasion dialogue to select locutions most likely to achieve its objective of persuading its opponent. Such strategies often assume that the participant has a model of its opponents, which may be constructed on the basis of a participant's accumulated dialogue experience. However in most cases the fact that an(More)
In most proposals for logic-based models of argumentation dialogues between agents, the arguments exchanged are logical arguments of the form Φ, α where Φ is a set of formulae (called the support) and α is a formula (called the claim) such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails α. However, arguments presented by real-world agents do not normally fit the mould(More)