On the Benefits of Argumentation Schemes in Deliberative Dialogues

Abstract

We present a model of argumentation-based deliberative dialogue for decision making in a team of agents. The model captures conflicts among agents' plans due to scheduling and causality constraints, and conflicts between actions, goals and norms. We evaluate this model in complex collaborative planning problems to assess its ability to resolve such conflicts. We show that a model grounded on appropriate argumentation schemes facilitates the sharing of relevant information about plan, goal and norm conflicts. Our results show also that this information-sharing leads to more effective conflict resolution.