Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben

2009 | Buch

Personality-Based Practical Reasoning Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

Fifth International Workshop, ArgMAS 2008, Estoril, Portugal, May 12, 2008. Revised Selected and Invited Papers

herausgegeben von: Iyad Rahwan, Pavlos Moraitis

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Buchreihe : Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Enthalten in: Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" , Springer Professional "Technik" , Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
insite
SUCHEN

Über dieses Buch

During the last decade Argumentation has been gaining importance within Artificial Intelligence especially in multi agent systems. Argumentation is a powerful mechanism for modelling the internal reasoning of an agent. It also provides tools for analysing, designing and implementing sophisticated forms of interaction among rational agents, thus making important contributions to the theory and practice of multiagent dialogues. Application domains include: nonmonotonic reasoning, legal disputes, business negotiation, labor disputes, team formation, scientific inquiry, deliberative democracy, ontology reconciliation, risk analysis, scheduling, and logistics.

This volume presents the latest developments in this area at the interface of argumentation theory and multi agent systems. The 10 revised full papers presented together with 3 invited papers from the AAMAS 2008 conference were carefully reviewed and selected from numerous submissions. The papers are organized in topical sections on argument-based reasoning, argumentation and dialogue, as well as strategic and pragmatic issues.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

Argument-Based Reasoning

Frontmatter
Personality-Based Practical Reasoning
Abstract
In virtual training scenarios, agent technology can be used to build a virtual tutor that assists a student during training. In a dialogue using argumentation schemes, the virtual tutor provides reasons to the students to explain why a particular action is the most sensible. The tutor determines the best action using practical reasoning. The justification of this action is selected based on the personality type of the student. This paper studies how agent technology could be used to make a virtual tutor that assists the student during the training. In particular, we study how the tutor can generate persuasive arguments for what the student should do.
Thomas L. van der Weide, Frank Dignum, John-Jules Ch. Meyer, Henry Prakken, Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk
Argumentation Based Resolution of Conflicts between Desires and Normative Goals
Abstract
Norms represent what ought to be done, and their fulfillment can be seen as benefiting the overall system, society or organisation. However, individual agent goals (desire) may conflict with system norms. If a decision to comply with a norm is determined exclusively by an agent or, conversely, if norms are rigidly enforced, then system performance may be degraded, and individual agent goals may be inappropriately obstructed. To prevent such deleterious effects we propose a general framework for argumentation-based resolution of conflicts amongst desires and norms. In this framework, arguments for and against compliance are arguments justifying rewards, respectively punishments, exacted by ‘enforcing’ agents. The arguments are evaluated in a recent extension to Dung’s abstract argumentation framework, in order that the agents can engage in metalevel argumentation as to whether the rewards and punishments have the required motivational force. We provide an example instantiation of the framework based on a logic programming formalism.
Sanjay Modgil, Michael Luck
A Constrained Argumentation System for Practical Reasoning
Abstract
Practical reasoning (PR), which is concerned with the generic question of what to do, is generally seen as a two steps process: (1) deliberation, in which an agent decides what state of affairs it wants to reach –that is, its desires; and (2) means-ends reasoning, in which the agent looks for plans for achieving these desires. A desire is justified if it holds in the current state of the world, and feasible if there is a plan for achieving it. The agent’s intentions are thus a consistent subset of desires that are both justified and feasible. This paper proposes the first argumentation system for PR that computes in one step the intentions of an agent, allowing thus to avoid the drawbacks of the existing systems. The proposed system is grounded on a recent work on constrained argumentation systems, and satisfies the rationality postulates identified in argumentation literature, namely the consistency and the completeness of the results.
Leila Amgoud, Caroline Devred, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
An Argumentation Framework Based on Strength for Ontology Mapping
Abstract
In the field of ontology mapping, using argumentation to combine different mapping approaches is an innovative research area. We had extended the Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) in order to represent arguments with confidence degrees, according to the similarity degree between the terms being mapped. The mappings are computed by agents using different mapping approaches. Based on their preferences and confidences, the agents compute their preferred mapping sets. The arguments in such preferred sets are viewed as the set of globally acceptable arguments. In previous work we had used discrete classes to represent the confidence degrees (certainty and uncertainty). In this paper, we propose to use continuous values from the interval [0,1]. Here, confidence is treated as strength. Using a threshold for the strength we can reduce the set of mappings and adjust the values of precision. We evaluate the use of strength against the previous confidence as discrete classes. The results are promising, especially what concerns precision.
Cássia Trojahn, Paulo Quaresma, Renata Vieira
Contextual Extension with Concept Maps in the Argument Interchange Format
Abstract
In our approach of argumentation we focus on formalizing the context of arguments and its propagation within the argumentation chain, aiming to facilitate the re-usability of arguments in the World Wide Argument Web. The contextual extension is based on intensional operators used to update the context for different arguments. We extend the ontology of the Argument Interchange Format with context nodes and visualize the arguments as concept maps.
Ioan Alfred Letia, Adrian Groza

Argumentation and Dialogue

Frontmatter
Command Dialogues
Abstract
We propose a representation of imperatives in computational systems, and a multi-agent dialogue protocol to argue over these. Our representation treats a command as a presumptive argument for an action to be executed by a designated agent, together with a set of associated critical questions whose answers may defeat the presumption. The critical questions enable the identification of attacks on the uttered command, and so can be used to specify a dialogue game protocol for participants to argue over the command. We present a formal syntax for part of the protocol, called CDP, and outline denotational semantics for both commands and for the protocol.
Katie Atkinson, Rod Girle, Peter McBurney, Simon Parsons
Argumentation and Artifact for Dialogue Support
Abstract
Intelligent and autonomous software agents may engage in dialogue and argument with one another, and much recent research has considered protocols, architectures and frameworks for this. Just as with human dialogues, such agent dialogues may be facilitated by the presence of a mediator, able to summarise different positions, identify common assumptions and inconsistencies, and make appropriate interventions in the dialogue. Drawing on the theory of co-ordination artifacts in multi-agent systems, we propose a formal framework to explicitly represent the functions of a mediator artifact. We then describe an implementation of this framework using the TuCS oN coordination infrastructure for MAS, where the mediator artifact is realised by a tuple centre—a programmable tuple space.
Enrico Oliva, Mirko Viroli, Andrea Omicini, Peter McBurney
Co-ordination and Co-operation in Agent Systems: Social Laws and Argumentation
Abstract
The social laws paradigm represents an important approach to the co-ordination of behaviour in multi-agent systems. In this paper we examine the relationship between social laws and rational behaviour, by which we mean behaviour that can be justified by a defensible argument. We describe how social laws have previously been defined and used within the context of Action-Based Alternating Transition Systems (AATSs). We then show how an account of argumentation for practical reasoning in agent systems, also based on AATSs, can be used to determine what is rational for the agents to do in the absence and presence of such laws. The reasoning involved is both of a practical and epistemic nature: agents need to make decisions about what to do based upon the assumptions that they make about the states they find themselves in, and crucially, they also need to reason about what the other agents in the scenario will do. What is rational for the agents to do has implications for the need for social laws, the ways in which social laws can help the situation, the form the social laws should take, and the likelihood of compliance with the social laws. This paper demonstrates how we can think about social laws and rational behaviour in a single framework, so as to identify these implications in particular scenarios, and so frame social laws accordingly.
Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon
Annotation and Matching of First-Class Agent Interaction Protocols
Abstract
Many practitioners view agent interaction protocols as rigid specifications that are defined a priori, and hard-code their agents with a set of protocols known at design time — an unnecessary restriction for intelligent and adaptive agents. To achieve the full potential of multi-agent systems, we believe that it is important that multi-agent interaction protocols are treated as first-class computational entities in systems. That is, they exist at runtime in systems as entities that can be referenced, inspected, composed, invoked and shared, rather than as abstractions that emerge from the behaviour of the participants. Using first-class protocols, a goal-directed agent can assess a library of protocols at runtime to determine which protocols best achieve a particular goal. In this paper, we presented three methods that enable agents to determine if a protocol achieves a specified goal. The two most promising approaches allow an agent to summarise a protocol that it has learned by calculating the outcomes achieved by the protocol, and annotate the protocol with these summaries. The agent can match, via annotations, which protocols in a library achieve a given goal.
Tim Miller, Peter McBurney

Strategic and Pragmatic Issues

Frontmatter
Argumentation- vs. Proposal-Based Negotiation: An Empirical Case Study on the Basis of Game-Theoretic Solution Concepts
Abstract
Recently, argumentation-based negotiation has been proposed as an alternative to classical mechanism design. The main advantage of argumentation-based negotiation is that it allows agents to exchange complex justification positions rather than just simple proposals. Its proponents maintain that this property of argumentation protocols can lead to faster and beneficial agreements when used for complex multiagent negotiation. In this paper, we present an empirical comparison of argumentation-based negotiation to proposal-based negotiation in a strategic two-player scenario. We apply a game-theoretic solution as a benchmark, which requires full knowledge of the stage games. Our experiments show that in fact the argumentation-based approach outperforms the proposal-based approach with respect to the quality of the agreements found and the overall time to agreement.
Angelika Först, Achim Rettinger, Matthias Nickles
Argumentation-Based Information Exchange in Prediction Markets
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate how argumentation processes among a group of agents may affect the outcome of group judgments. In particular we will focus on prediction markets (also called information markets) and we will investigate how the existence of social networks (that allow agents to argue with one another to improve their individual predictions) effect on group judgments. Social networks allow agents to exchange information about the group judgment by arguing about the most likely choice based on their individual experience. We develop an argumentation-based deliberation process by which the agents acquire new and relevant information. Finally, we experimentally assess how different social network connectivity and different data distribution affect group judgment.
Santi Ontañón, Enric Plaza
An Argumentative Approach for Modelling Coalitions Using ATL
Abstract
During the last decade argumentation has evolved as a successful approach to formalize commonsense reasoning and decision making in multiagent systems. In particular, recent research has shown that argumentation can be used to provide a framework for reasoning about coalition formation, formalizing the adoption of coalitions by the agents in association with different argumentation semantics. At the same time Alternating-time Temporal Logic (atl for short) has been successfully used to reason about the behavior and abilities of coalitions of agents. However, an important limitation of atl operators is that they account only for the existence of successful strategies of coalitions, not considering whether coalitions can be actually formed.
This paper is an attempt to combine both frameworks in order to develop a logical system through which we can reason at the same time (1) about abilities of coalitions of agents and (2) about the formation of coalitions. In order to achieve this, we provide a formal extension of atl, called Coalitional atl (coalATL for short), in which the actual computation of the coalition is modelled in terms of argumentation semantics. Moreover, we integrate goals as agents’ incentive to join coalitions. We show that coalATL’s proof theory can be understood as a natural extension of the model checking procedure used in atl.
Nils Bulling, Carlos I. Chesñevar, Jürgen Dix
A Dialogue Mechanism for Public Argumentation Using Conversation Policies
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a flexible dialogue mechanism through which a set of agents can establish a coherent set of public beliefs. Flexibility and coherence are achieved by decomposing the dialogue mechanism into two parts, a backbone protocol and a set of conversation policies. The backbone protocol maintains the set of arguments put forward by the agents, and each agent uses a pre-agreed argumentation theory to extract a set of public beliefs from this set of arguments. The flexibility is achieved by distributing the other functions of the dialogue mechanism among a set of conversation policies, some of which are public and some of which are private to each agent.
Yuqing Tang, Simon Parsons
Backmatter
Metadaten
Titel
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
herausgegeben von
Iyad Rahwan
Pavlos Moraitis
Copyright-Jahr
2009
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Electronic ISBN
978-3-642-00207-6
Print ISBN
978-3-642-00206-9
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise