**** Apologies for multiple postings ***** ************************************** First International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2004) *************************************
Mon 19, July 2004, Columbia University, NY, USA http://web.dis.unimelb.edu.au/pgrad/iyadr/argmas In Conjunction with AAMAS 2004 (See AAMAS website for registration) http://satchmo.cs.columbia.edu/aamas04/ Program: ************** INVITED TALK: ************** Argument as Belief-Monitoring Prof. Jonathan Adler, Faculty of Philosophy, City University of New York Abstract: Argument is generally conceived as aiming at rational persuasion. However, argument serves another crucial cognitive function: It is a device of belief self-correction. By arguing with an agent, whose judgments I do not control, yet which are coordinated with mine, I can uncover weaknesses in my own beliefs, and weaknesses that I am barred from even recognizing by the very fact of belief. Similarly, perception, memory, simple reasoning, and testimony are generally viewed as reliable ways to acquire good information (new beliefs). But these are also on-going mechanisms to monitor, and so correct or revise, beliefs. I want to explore the value of argument as a second-order monitoring system of self-correction, and for the conceptual and modeling problems this role raises. ************** FULL PAPERS: ************** - - Some preliminary steps towards a meta-theory for formal inter-agent dialogues Simon Parsons, Peter McBurney and Michael Wooldridge - - Formal Dialectic Specification Simon Wells and Chris Reed - - Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication Chris Reed and Doug Walton - - On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation Leila Amgoud and Souhila Kaci - - Is it worth arguing? Nishan C. Karunatillake and Nicholas R. Jennings - - Bargaining and argument-based negotiation: some preliminary comparisons Iyad Rahwan, Liz Sonenberg and Peter McBurney - - A Bayes Net approach to argumentation-based negotiation Sabyasachi Saha and Sandip Sen - - When is it okay to lie? A simple model of contradiction in agent-based dialogues Elizabeth Sklar, Simon Parsons and Mathew Davies - - Layered strategies and protocols for argumentation-based interaction Antonis Kakas, Nicolas Maudet and Pavlos Moraitis - - A dialogue game protocol for multiagent argument over proposals for action Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon and Peter McBurney - - A Persuasion Dialogue Game based on Commitments and Arguments Jamal Bentahar, Bernard Moulin and Brahim Chaib-draa - - An argument-based framework to model an agent's beliefs in a dynamic environment M. Capobianco, C.I. Chesnevar and G.R. Simari - - Revising beliefs through arguments: bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS Fabio Paglieri and Cristiano Castelfranchi *********************** POSITION STATEMENTS: *********************** - - Communicating Conventions of Argumentation-based Dialogue Games Jarred P. McGinnis - - Evidence and Argumentation based Risk Assessment Will Shenton, Trent Cain, Ryan How ********************************************************* Iyad Rahwan Department of Information Systems The University of Melbourne Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia Ph: +61-3-8344 1588 Fax: +61-3-9349 4596 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://web.dis.unimelb.edu.au/pgrad/iyadr/ *********************************************************
