Conversational semantics sustained by commitments
Brahim Chaib-draa
Philippe Pasquier2007
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
Abstract We propose an operational model that combines message meaning and conversational structure in one comprehensive approach. Our long-term research goal is to lay down principles uniting message meaning and conversational structure while providing an operational foundation that could be implemented in open computer systems.
Related papers
Conversational semantics with social commitments
2005
Message semantics are traditionally defined in terms of mental states, which is a trend that is criticized for assuming the sincerity and cooperativeness of agents. To circumvent these limitations, several proposals have been put forth to define the semantics of messages using social commitments.
An integrated semantics of social commitments and associated operations
2009
In this paper, we develop a unified semantic model for social commitments and associated operations. We propose a logical model based on CT L * with modalities of commitments and associated operations that represent the dynamic behavior of agents. Our semantics differs from the previous proposals in which the operations used to manipulate commitments (e.g. creation, fulfillment, violation, withdrawn, etc.) have always been defined as axioms or constrains on top of the commitment semantics. The advantage of this logical model is to gather the direct semantics of these operations and the semantics of social commitments (propositional and conditional) within the same framework. Furthermore, this paper proposes a new definition of assignment and delegation operations by looking at the content of the assigned and delegated commitment that could be different from the content of the original commitment in terms of deadline. Finally, to stress the soundness of the model, we prove that the proposed semantics satisfies some properties that are desirable when modeling commitment-based multiagent systems.
Operational Specification of a Commitment-Based Agent Communication Language
Proceedings of the first international joint …, 2002
A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations
Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Languages and …, 2000
Implicit commitments through protocol-level semantics
Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Norms and Institutions in MAS, 2001
A Logical Model of Social Commitment for Agent Communication
Advances in Agent Communication, 2004
Ontological Commitments on the Classes of Messages: an Step towards Agents Semantic
2009
Abstract. Nowadays it is increasing the tendency of using agents on behalf of information systems in their interactions with other autonomous information systems. Moreover, there exists an actual interest on getting these interactions at a semantic level, that is, beyond the syntactic level interaction provided by the XML format standard. In this paper we present a mechanism that gives an step forward in the global goal of achieving a semantic interoperability among agents. The mechanism is based on ontological commitments on the classes of messages interchanged by agents of different information systems in an scenario where agents act in a sincere, helpful and liberal way. Furthermore those messages are considered as individuals of OWL classes, and we take advantage of the reasoning supporting OWL ontologies. 1
A Modal Semantics for an Argumentation-Based Pragmatics for Agent Communication
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005
In this paper we present a modal semantics for our approach based on social commitments and arguments for conversational agents. Our formal framework based on this approach uses three basic elements: social commitments, actions that agents apply to these social commitments and arguments that agents use to support their actions. This framework, called Commitment and Argument Network (CAN), formalizes the agents' interactions as a network in which agents manipulate commitments and arguments. More precisely, we propose a logical model (called DCTL* CAN ) based on CTL* and on dynamic logic for this framework. The advantage of this logical model is to bring together social commitments, actions, argumentation relations, and the relations existing between these three elements within the same framework. Our semantics makes it possible to represent the dynamics of agent communication. It also allows us to establish the important link between social commitments as a deontic concept and arguments. The final objective of this paper is to propose a unified framework for pragmatics and semantics of agent communication by defining logic-based protocols.
A Context-Change Semantics for Dialogue Acts
Text, Speech and Language Technology, 2014
This chapter presents an update semantics for dialogue acts, defined in terms of combinations of 'elementary update functions'. This approach allows finegrained distinctions to be made between related types of dialogue acts, and relations like entailment and exclusion between dialogue acts to be established. The approach is applied to the inventory of dialogue act types in the DIT ++ taxonomy, using dialogue act representations as defined in the Dialogue Act Markup Language (Di-AML), which is part of the recently established ISO standard 24617-2 for dialogue act annotation.
Interaction is Meaning: A New Model for Communication In Open Systems
Proceedings of the second …, 2003
Related papers
A Commitment-Based Approach to Agent Communication
Applied Artificial Intelligence, 2004
Using a performative subsumption lattice to support commitment-based conversations
Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - AAMAS '05, 2005
In this paper, we arrange FIPA's ACL performatives to form a subsumption lattice (ontology) and apply a theory of social commitments to achieve a simplified and observable model of agent behaviour. Using this model, it is straight forward to model agents' social commitments (obligations) based solely on observation of messages passed between the agents (such observation is supported by our agent infrastructure system). Furthermore, owing to the performatives being in a subsumption lattice, it is relatively easy for an observer to infer social commitment relationships even if the observer does not understand the details of messages or even the exact performatives used (so long as the observer has access to the performatives ontology).
Commitments, Beliefs and Intentions in Dialogue
2008
We define grounding in terms of shared public commitments, and link public commitments to other, private, attitudes within a decidable dynamic logic for computing implicatures and predicting an agent's next dialogue move.
A New Logical Semantics for Agent Communication
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2007
In this paper we develop a semantics of our approach based on commitments and arguments for conversational agents. We propose a logical model based on CTL* (Extended Computation Tree Logic) and on dynamic logic. Called Commitment and Argument Network (CAN), our formal framework based on this hybrid approach uses three basic elements: social commitments, actions that agents apply to these commitments and arguments that agents use to support their actions. The advantage of this logical model is to gather all these elements and the existing relations between them within the same framework. The semantics we develop here enables us to reflect the dynamics of agent communication. It also allows us to establish the important link between commitments as a deontic concept and arguments. On the one hand CTL* enables us to express all the temporal aspects related to the handling of commitments and arguments. On the other hand, dynamic logic enables us to capture the actions that agents are committed to achieve.
Flexible Conversations Using Social Commitments and a Performatives Hierarchy
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006
In this research, we re-arrange FIPA's ACL performatives to form a subsumption lattice (ontology) and apply a theory of social commitments to achieve a simplified and observable model of agent behaviour. Using this model, we have implemented agent interaction through social commitments (or obligations) based solely on observation of messages passed between the agents (such observation is supported by the cooperation domain mechanism in our agent infrastructure system). Moreover, because the performatives are in a subsumption lattice, it is relatively easy for an observer to infer social commitment relationships even if the observer does not understand the details of messages or even the exact performatives used (so long as the observer has access to the performatives ontology).
DIAGAL: An Agent Communication Language Based on Dialogue Games and Sustained by Social Commitments
Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 2006
In recent years, social commitment based approaches have been proposed to solve problems issuing from previous mentalistic based semantics for agent communication languages. This paper follows the same line of thought since it presents the latest version of our dialogue game based agent communication language -DIAlogue-Game based Agent Language (DIAGAL) -which allows agents to manipulate the public layer of social commitments through dialogue, by creating, canceling and updating their social commitments.
Diagal: A tool for analyzing and modelling commitment-based dialogues between agents
2003
Abstract This paper overviews our currently in progress agent communication language simulator, called DIAGAL, by describing its use in analyzing and modelling automated conversations in offices. Offices are modelled here as systems of communicative action based on dialogue games. Through such games, people in once engage in actions by making promises, stating facts, asking for information, and so on.
Distinguishing Propositional and Action Commitment in Agent Communication
Our goal is to extend agent communication languages for persuasion dialogues. We distinguish action commitments from propositional commitments, because both limit future moves, but an action commitment is fulfilled when the hearer believes that the action is performed, whereas a propositional commitment is fulfilled only when the hearer concedes to the proposition -where concessions are the absence of a belief to the contrary, and prevent further challenges. Using a common model for both kind of commitments and a role-based semantics of agent communication languages, we show how propositional commitments are related to public beliefs and action commitments to public goals.
Towards a formal framework for conversational agents
2000
This paper proposes a formal framework which offers an external representation of conversations between conversational agents. Using this formalism allows us: (1) to represent the dynamics of conversations between agents; (2) to analyze conversations; (3) to help autonomous agents to take part in consistent conversations. The proposed formalism, called "commitment and argument network", uses a combined approach based on commitments
A Knowledge Based Semantics of Messages
Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2003
We investigate the semantics of messages, and argue that the meaning of a message is naturally and usefully given in terms of how it affects the knowledge of the agents involved in the communication. We note that this semantics depends on the protocol used by the agents, and thus not only the message itself, but also the protocol appears as
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.