- ARGUGRID Flyer
[ July 2008 ]
Papers from:2009, 2008, 2007, 2006
- An Argumentative Model for Service-Oriented Agents.
Maxime Morge and Jarred McGinnis and Stefano Bromuri and Paolo Mancarella and Kostas Stathis.
Proc. of the he International Symposium on Architectures for Intelligent Theory-Based Agents, AAAI Spring Symposium Series, Stanford University, California, USA
Abstract: In this paper we propose an argumentative agent model able to reason and make decisions, communicate and negotiate with other agents with the aim of supporting service selection and composition. Actually, our agent model is inspired from the general-purpose KGP agent model which deals only partially with priorities as required by our application. We provide here an argumentation framework which adopts Knowledge, Goals, Decisions, and Priorities as the main component to perform the individual and social reasoning of agents. We propose here an example to illustrate our approach. - Social and Persuasive Argumentation over Organized Actions.
Maxime Morge
Proc. of the International Symposium on Persuasive Technologies, p 22-28, AISB Convention, ISBN 1 902956 64 8, Aberdeen, UK, 2008.
Abstract: To achieve greater adoption of argumentation technologies, their links with other disciplines need attention. In particular, Sociology provides a pertinent and well-grounded background for analysing the social dimensions of multiagent organisations. In this paper, we explore the social science background which captures the notions of motivation and social power/relationship in order to provide a coordination mechanism for open complex multiagent systems. Moreover, we formalize here these notions and we apply to them a particular argumentation technology for allowing agents to negotiate. Agents argue for persuading each other to collaborate with the help of two different schemes: appeals to common goal and threats. Our framework is exemplified with a simple use case. - An Argumentation-based Computational Model of Trust for Negotiation.
Maxime Morge
Proc. of the International Symposium on Behaviour Regulation in Multi-Agent Systems, Volume 4, p 31-36, AISB Convention, ISBN 1 902956 64 8, Aberdeen, UK, 2008.
Abstract: The fact that open multiagent systems are vulnerable with respect to malicious agents poses a great challenge: the detection and the prevention of undesirable behaviours. That is the reason why techniques such as trust and reputation mechanisms have been proposed. In this paper, we explore the cognitive science background which captures the notions of trust, reputation and confidence to provide a computational trust mechanism applied to negotiations within artificial societies. For this purpose, we formalize here these notions and we apply to them a particular argumentation technology for allowing agents to initiate, evaluate, reason, decide, and propagate reputation values. - Agreeing on Institutional Goals for Multi-Agent Systems
F. Toni, D. Gaertner and J.A. Rodriguez
COIN workshop at the AAMAS conference in Estoril, Portugal
Abstract: We present an argumentation-based approach to the problem of ?nding a set of institutional goals for multi-agent systems. The behaviour of the autonomous agents we consider in this paper is goal-directed, driven by either individual or common goals. When multiple agents want to set up a collaboration framework (for themselves or others to use), they do so by forming an institution (or organisation). The goals of such institution must be agreed upon by the agents setting up the framework before it can be executed. We propose to employ argumentation, and in particular assumption-based argumentation, to facilitate the negotiation of institutional goals. We ?rst describe a centralised approach and then provide the rationale for and detail our preliminary e?orts at de-centralising the problem. We propose to use the argumentation system CaSAPI as a tool to reason about the collaborative goals of the institution. Our approach mitigates concerns about performance bottlenecks and vulnerability of the system while providing, to some extent, privacy to the individual members of the institution. - The hedgehog and the fox. An Argumentation-Based Decision Support System.
Maxime Morge
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Fourth International Workshop ArgMAS, Revised Selected and Invited Papers. Iyad Rahwan and Simon Parsons and Chris Reed (eds). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Volume 4946, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2008.
Abstract: In this paper, we present a decision support system which is built upon an argumentation framework for practical reasoning. A logic language is used as a concrete data structure for holding statements representing knowledge, goals, and decisions. Different priorities are attached to these items, corresponding to the probability of the knowledge, the preferences between goals, and the expected utilities of decisions. These concrete data structures consist of information providing the backbone of arguments. Due to the abductive nature of practical reasoning, arguments are built by reasoning backwards, and possibly by making suppositions over missing information. Moreover, arguments are defined as tree-like structures. In this way, our computer system, implemented in Prolog, suggests some solutions and provides an interactive and intelligible explanation of this choice. - Computational Logic and Agent Based Systems
P. Mancarella, F. Toni
Il Milione (i.e. 26, June 3rd 2008), A Journey in the Computational Logic in Italy, Proc. of the Day Dedicated to Prof. Alberto Martelli
Abstract: We describe recent work on the deployment of computational logic to support the formalisation and implementation of agents in multi-agent systems. Several forms of computational logic systems are needed in this setting, including abductive, argumentative and preference-based systems. We briefly sketch the agent model called KGP, and an ongoing extension of it which is needed to model agents in distributed settings such as the Grid and, more generally, Service-oriented architectures. - Automating Workflows Using Dialetical Argumentation
Visara Urovi, Stefano Bromuri, Jarred Mcginnis, Kostas Stathis and Andrea Omicini RHUL
IADIS International Journal on Computer Science and Information Systems (2-3): 1646-3692, 2008
Abstract: This paper presents a multi-agent framework based on argumentative agent technology for the automation of the workflow selection and execution. In this framework, workflow selection is coordinated by agent interactions governed by the rules of a dialogue game whose purpose is to evaluate the workflow's properties via argumentation. Once a workflow is selected using this process, the workflow is executed by dynamically configuring workflow engines to coordinate the participating agents' workflow activities. We illustrate the overall framework with an example of workflow composition that allows an agent to book an appropriate ticket and rent a car. - A Virtual E-retailing Environment in GOLEM
Stefano Bromuri, Visara Urovi, Pedro Contreras, Kostas Stathis
Intelligent Environments, (IE08), Seattle, US, July 2008
Abstract: We present a prototype multi-agent system whose goal is to support a 3D application for e-retailing. The prototype demonstrates how the use of agent environments can be amongst the most promising and flexible approaches to engineer e-retailing applications. We illustrate this point by showing how the agent environment GOLEM uses semantic web concepts to develop the e-retailing application. In this context we describe the features of GOLEM that allow a user to become an avatar and explore the environment by searching and dynamically discovering new products and services. - The ArguGRID Platform: An Overview
F. Toni, M. Grammatikou, S. Kafetzoglou, L. Lymberopoulos, S. Papavassileiou, D. Gaertner, M. Morge, S. Bromuri, J. McGinnis, K. Stathis, V. Curcin, M. Ghanem, Li Guo ALL PARTNERS
Proc. of the 5th International Workshop on Grid Economics and Business Models (GECON08), LNCS, 2008. Las Palmas De Gran Canaria, Spain
Abstract: The ARGUGRID project aims at supporting service selection and composition in distributed environments, including the Grid and Service-oriented architectures, by means of argumentative agents, an agent environment, a service-composition environment, Peer-to-Peer technology and Grid middleware. Agents are argumentative in that they use argumentation-based decision-making and argumentation-supported negotiation of services and contracts. The integration of all technologies gives rise to the overall ARGUGRID platform. In this paper we outline the main components and the overall functionalities of the ARGUGRID platform. - An Argumentative Model for Service-Oriented Agents
Maxime Morge and Jarred McGinnis and Stefano Bromuri and Paolo Mancarella and Kostas Stathis. RHUL, UNIPI
Proc. of the International Symposium on Architectures for Intelligent Theory-Based Agents, AAAI Spring Symposium Series, Stanford University, California, USA
Abstract: In this paper we propose an argumentative agent model able to reason and make decisions, communicate and negotiate with other agents with the aim of supporting service selection and composition. Actually, our agent model is inspired from the general-purpose KGP agent model which deals only partially with priorities as required by our application. We provide here an argumentation framework which adopts Knowledge, Goals, Decisions, and Priorities as the main component to perform the individual and social reasoning of agents. We propose here an example to illustrate our approach. - The Agent Argumentation Architecture Revisited
M. Morge and K. Stathis RHUL, UNIPI
In Proc. of European Workshop on Multi-agent Systems (EUMAS08), Bath, UK, 2008
Abstract: The Agent Argumentation Architecture (AAA) has been recently proposed [1] as an abstract model by means of which an autonomous agent argues with itself to manage its motivations and arbitrate its possibly conflicting internal goals. In an attempt to show how the AAA model can be instantiated, we revisit the original model with a concrete argumentation framework illustrating how the internal dialectic process can be specified as a dialogue-game between internal components representing the agent’s mental faculties. The resulting framework is exemplified with an intuitive case, illustrating the importance of argumentation to develop models of cognitive agents with motivations. - From Agent Game Protocols to Implementable Roles
Christos Kloukinas , George Lekeas , and Kostas Stathis RHUL
In Proc. of European Workshop on Multi-agent Systems ( EUMAS08), Bath, UK, 2008
Abstract: We present a formal framework for decomposing agent interaction protocols to the roles their participants should play. The framework allows an Authority Agent that knows a protocol to compute the protocol’s roles so that it can allocate them to interested parties. We show how the Authority Agent can use the role descriptions to identify problems with the protocol and repair it on the fly, to ensure that participants will be able to implement their role requirements without compromising the protocol’s interactions. Our representation of agent interaction protocols is a game-based one and the decomposition of a game protocol into its constituent roles is based upon the branching bisimulation equivalence reduction of the game. The work extends our previous work on using games to admit agents in an artificial society by checking their competence according to the society rules. The applicability of the overall approach is illustrated by showing how to decompose the NetBill protocol into its roles. We also show how to automatically repair the interactions of a protocol that cannot be implemented in its original form. - Towards an Argument-based Model of Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contracts
Phan Minh Dung, Phan Minh Thang AIT
CLIMA IX, Dresden, Germany
Abstract: We present an argumentation-based approach to contract negotiation amongst agents. Contracts are simply viewed as abstract transactions of items between a buyer agent and a seller agent, characterised by a number of features. Agents are equipped with beliefs, goals, and preferences. Goals are classified as either structural or contractual. In order to agree on a contract, agents engage in a two-phase negotiation process: in the first phase, the buyer agent decides on (a selection of) items fulfilling its structural goals and preferences; in the second phase, the buyer agent decides on a subset of the items identified in the first phase fulfilling its contractual goals and preferences. The first phase is supported by argumentationbased decision making taking preferences into account. - Argument-based Decision Making and Negotiation in E-business: Contracting a Land Lease for a Computer Assembly Plant
Phan Minh Dung, Phan Minh Thang and Nguyen Duy Hung AIT
CLIMA IX, Dresden, Germany
Abstract: We describe an extensive application of argument-based decision making and negotiation to a real-world scenario in which an investor agent and an estate manager agent negotiate to lease a land for a computer assembly factory. Agents are equipped with beliefs, goals, preferences, and argument-based decision-making mechanisms taking uncertainties into account. Goals are classified as either structural or contractual. The negotiation process is divided into two phases. In the first phase, following a recently proposed framework [8] the investor agent find suitable locations based on its structural goals such as requirements about transportation; the estate manager agent determines favored tenants based on its structural goals such as requirements about resource conservation. In the second phase, we introduce a new novel argumentbased negotiation protocol for agents to agree on contract to fulfill their contractual goals such as waste disposal cost - Game-Theoretic Measure of Argument Strength for Abstract Argumentation
P.-A. Matt and F. Toni Imperial
11th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2008)
Abstract: Abstract argumentation (Dung 1995) is a theory of dialectic that allows us to formalise and study various notions of argument acceptability. We depart from this standard approach and formalise a measure of argument strength by applying the concept of value of a game, as defined in Game Theory (von Neumann 1928). The measure thus obtained satisfies a number of intuitively appealing properties that can be derived mathematically from the minimax theorem. - Computational Logic Foundations of KGP Agents
A. Kakas, P. Mancarella, F. Sadri, K. Stathis, F. Toni Imperial, RHUL, UNIPI
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, Volume 33, pages 285-348
Abstract: This paper presents the computational logic foundations of a model of agency called the KGP (Knowledge, Goals and Plan model. This model allows the specification of heterogeneous agents that can interact with each other, and can exhibit both proactive and reactive behaviour allowing them to function in dynamic environments by adjusting their goals and plans when changes happen in such environments. KGP provides a highly modular agent architecture that integrates a collection of reasoning and physical capabilities, synthesised within transitions that update the agent's state in response to reasoning, sensing and acting. Transitions are orchestrated by cycle theories that specify the order in which transitions are executed while taking into account the dynamic context and agent preferences, as well as selection operators for providing inputs to transitions. - Assumption-based argumentation for epistemic and practical reasoning
F. Toni Imperial
Computable Models of the Law, G. Sartor et al (eds), Springer LNAI 4884, pages 185-202
Abstract: Assumption-based argumentation can serve as an effective computational tool for argumentation-based epistemic and practical reasoning, as required in a number of applications. In this paper we substantiate this claim by presenting formal mappings from frameworks for epistemic and practical reasoning onto assumption-based argumentation frameworks. We also correlate these mappings to formulations of epistemic and practical reasoning in abstract argumentation terms. - Argumentation sur les motivations propres dans l'architecture V3A pour des agents auto-adaptatifs
Maxime Morge, Kostas Stathis and Laurent Vercouter UNIPI, RHUL
Proc. of 16ème Journées Francophones sur les Systèmes Multi-Agents (JFSMA'08), Brest, France
Abstract: Inspired by the Vowels approach, the Vowel Agent Argumentation Architecture (V3A) is a model by means of which an autonomous agent argues with itself to manage its motivations. It arbitrates its possible internal conflicts with the help of its personnality which dictates its behaviour. In order to show how this model can be used to design self-adative agents, we propose an argumentation technique which specifies the internal dialectical process as a dialogue game amongst internal components which can dynamically join/leave the game. Our framework is exemplified with a scenario, whereby the components are automatically downloaded. - Computing argumentation for decision making in legal disputes
Maxime Morge UNIPI
Computable Models of the Law: Languages, Dialogue, Games, Ontologies. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Volume 4884, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany
Abstract: In this paper, we present a decision support system for lawyer. This system is built upon an argumentation framework for decision making. A logic language is used as a concrete data structure for holding the statements like knowledge, goals, and decisions. Different priorities are attached to these items corresponding to the uncertainty of the knowledge about the circumstances, the lawyer’s preferences, and the expected utilities of sentences. These concrete data structures consist of information providing the backbone of arguments. Due to the abductive nature of practical reasoning, arguments are built by reasoning backwards, and possibly by making suppositions over missing information. Moreover, arguments are defined as tree-like structures. In this way, our computer system, implemented in Prolog, suggests some actions and provides an interactive and intelligible explanation of this solution. - Basic influence diagrams and the liberal stable semantics
F. Toni , P. Matt
COMMA conference in Toulouse, France
Abstract: This paper is concerned with the general problem of constructing decision tables and more specifically, with the identification of all possible outcomes of decisions. We introduce and propose basic influence diagrams as a simple way of describing problems of decision making under strict uncertainty. We then establish a correspondence between basic influence diagrams and symmetric generalised assumption-based argumentation frameworks and adopt an argumentation-based approach to identify the possible outcomes. We show that the intended solutions are best characterised using a new semantics that we call liberal stability. We finally present a number of theoretical results concerning the relationships between liberal stability and existing semantics for argumentation. - Hybrid argumentation and its properties
F. Toni , D. Gaertner
COMMA conference in Toulouse, France
Abstract: We present a variant of AB-dispute derivations for assumption-based argumentation (ABA), that can be used for determining the admissibility of claims. ABA reduces the problem of computing arguments to the problem of computing assumptions supporting these arguments. Whereas the original AB-dispute derivations only manipulate sets of assumptions, our variant also renders explicit the underlying dialectical structure of arguments (by a proponent) and counter-arguments (by an opponent), and thus supports a hybrid of ABA and abstract argumentation bene?cial to developing applications of argumentation where explicit justi?cations of claims in terms of full dialectical structures are required. We prove that the proposed variant of AB-dispute derivations is correct. - Towards argumentation-based contract negotiation
P. M. Dung, P. M. Thang, F. Toni, D. Gaertner
COMMA conference in Toulouse, France
Abstract: We present an argumentation-based approach to contract negotiation amongst agents. Contracts are simply viewed as abstract transactions of items between a buyer agent and a seller agent, characterised by a number of features. Agents are equipped with beliefs, goals, and preferences. Goals are classified as either structural or contractual. - Argumentative KGP agents for service composition
F. Toni
AITA08, Architectures for Intelligent Theory-Based Agents, AAAI Spring Symposium, , Stanford University, California, USA
Abstract: We sketch a variant of the KGP agent model tailored to support service composition in service-oriented architectures. - E-Business in ARGUGRID
F. Toni (presented by Dimitris Dimitrelos)
GECON 2007 (Grid ECONomics) workshop, EUROPAR 2007 conference, Rennes, France
Abstract: The ArguGRID project aims at supporting e-business applications, and in particular e-procurement, earth observation and business migration scenarios, by means of argumentative agent-based grid technologies. In this paper we outline the main features of the ARGUGRID envisaged system, intended to support more generally service selection and composition in distributed environments, including the grid and service-oriented architectures. - Instrumenting the GRID
D. Kollia, M Grammatikou, S. Kafetzoglou, S. Papavassilou
INGRID08, Third International Workshop on Distributed Cooperative laboratories. Italy
- Argumentation-based agents for eProcurement
P.A. Matt , F. Toni, T. Stournaras & D. Dimitrelos
AAMAS conference in Estoril, Portugal,
Abstract: Procurement is the complete process of obtaining goods and services -- from preparation and processing of a requisition through to receipt and approval of the invoice for payment. The support for eProcurement is important for realising agent-based eBusiness applications. This paper proposes the use of argumentation-based agents to support the selection of suppliers for goods and services within the negotiation phase of procurement. Argumentation is used to compare candidate suppliers and identify the one that best meets the buyer's business-specific needs. The use of argumentation-based technology presents important advantages over traditional procurement methods such as competitive bidding, direct negotiation or single-source acquisition in that it can cope with qualitative uncertainty and preferences as well as the construction of contracts. We apply the method to the industrial procurement of an eOrdering system. - Hybrid argumentation an its properties
D.Gaertner and F.Toni
Proc. of the Second International Conference on Computational Models of Argument. France
Abstract: We present a variant of AB-dispute derivations for assumption-based argumentation (ABA), that can be used for determining the admissibility of claims. ABA reduces the problem of computing arguments to the problem of computing assumptions supporting these arguments. Whereas the original AB-dispute derivations only manipulate sets of assumptions, our variant also renders explicit the underlying dialectical structure of arguments (by a proponent) and counter-arguments (by an opponent), and thus supports a hybrid of ABA and abstract argumentation bene?cial to developing applications of argumentation where explicit justi?cations of claims in terms of full dialectical structures are required. We prove that the proposed variant of AB-dispute derivations is correct. - Basic influence diagrams and the liberal stable semantics
P.Matt & F.Toni
Proc. of the Second International Conference on Computational Models of Argument. France
Abstract: This paper is concerned with the general problem of constructing decision tables and more specifically, with the identification of all possible outcomes of decisions. We introduce and propose basic influence diagrams as a simple way of describing problems of decision making under strict uncertainty. We then establish a correspondence between basic influence diagrams and symmetric generalised assumption-based argumentation frameworks and adopt an argumentation-based approach to identify the possible outcomes. We show that the intended solutions are best characterised using a new semantics that we call liberal stability. We finally present a number of theoretical results concerning the relationships between liberal stability and existing semantics for argumentation. - A Novel Load Balancing Mechanism for P2P Networking
L. Lymberopoulos, S. Papavassiliou and V. Maglaris
Proceedings of ACM First International Conference on Networks for Grid Applications (Gridnets 2007), Lyon, France
Abstract: Peer to Peer (P2P) networking is a potential disruptive technology that can be used for the development of scalable, fully decentralized distributed applications. However, to realize its potential, P2P technology should address the needs of a variety of applications, other than supporting the needs of file-sharing applications, which require support for exact-match queries on the names of the files. Our work complements and contributes to existing P2P frameworks that support multiple-attributes and range queries, using the distributed K-Dimensional (K-D) tree structure for organizing shared information among participating peers. In such systems, an open problem is the issue of load balancing of resources among peers, as only load-balanced data structures can guarantee that the complexity for resolving multi-attribute and range queries remains logarithmic (thus scalable) in respect to the number of participating peers. The contribution of our work is a novel load balancing algorithm for dynamically keeping the resource load among peers balanced within a P2P network. The paper proves that the load balancing algorithm is scalable, achieving an O(log2N) complexity. We illustrate how our algorithm can be used to build a scalable Grid Information Service supporting multi-attribute and range queries on available services within the shared Grid infrastructure. - Discovery of resources in a distributed Grid environment based on specific Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
D. Kollia, S. Kafetzoglou, M. Grammatikou , S.Papavassiliou
Proceedings of Third International Workshop on Distributed Cooperative laboratories: Instrumenting the GRID, Ischia, Italy
- Amongst First-Class Protocols
Tim Miller & Jarred McGinnis.
Proceedings of ESAW, Athens, Greece
Abstract: The ubiquity of our increasingly distributed and complex computing environments have necessitated the development of programming approaches and paradigms that an automatically manage the numerous tasks and processes involved. Hence, research into agency and multi-agent systems are of more and more interest as an automation solution. Coordination becomes a central issue in these environments. The most promising approach is the use of interaction protocols. Interaction protocols specify the interaction or social norms for the participating agents. However the orthodoxy see protocols as rigid specifications that are defined a priori. A recent development in this field of research is the specification of protocols that are treated as first-class computational entities. This paper explores the most prominent approaches and compares them. - Assumption-based argumentation for closed and consistent defeasible reasoning
F.Toni.
New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI 2007 Conference and Workshops Revised Selected Papers, Ken Satoh, Akihiro Inokuchi, Katashi Nagao, Takahiro Kawamura (eds),
Abstract: Assumption-based argumentation is a concrete but general-purpose argumentation framework that has been shown, in particular, to generalise several existing mechanisms for non-monotonic reasoning, by admitting them as concrete instances. In this paper we consider the problem of reasoning with defeasible and strict rules, for example as required in a legal setting. We provide a mapping of defeasible reasoning into assumption-based argumentation, and show that the framework obtained has properties of closedness and consistency, that have been advocated elsewhere as important for defeasible reasoning in the presence of strict rules. Whereas other argumentation approaches have been proven closed and consistent under some specific semantics, we prove that assumption-based argumentation is closed and consistent under all argumentation semantics. - Bilateral Agent Negotiation With Information- Seeking
Adil Hussain and Francesca Toni
EUMAS 2007, 5th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems in Hammamet, Tunisia
Abstract: We present a generative framework for bilateral agent negotiation that allows for information-seeking between agents in a resource re-allocation setting. In this framework each agent begins with beliefs as to which resources it has and desires for resources that it would like to have. We define the rules of the dialogues specifying the permissible messages, turn-taking and the order in which messages can be sent. The participants of the dialogues (i.e. the agents) adopt internal policies that enable them to conform to the dialogue rules whilst pursuing their individual desires. - A Security Framework for Agent-based Systems
J. Bentahar, F. Toni, J.-J. Ch. Meyer, J. Labban
IJWIS - International Journal of Web Information Systems
Abstract: In open systems such as Web services-based applications and grid computing, security is still an open and challenging issue. In this paper, we propose a security framework for these systems from trust and reputation point of view using multi-agent technology. Entities in these systems (Web services, virtual organizations, etc.) are considered as agents equipped with advanced communication and reasoning capabilities that manifest themselves with argumentation-based reasoning. Agents interact with each other using dialogue game-based protocols. While Protocol specification is public, each agent has its private strategy on how to use the protocol. Argumentation is used to reason about these strategies. Agents’ reputation is dealt with as a quantitative value computed based on direct and indirect interaction histories and the notion of social networks. The paper discusses different protocols and strategies about trust propagation and different parameters to consider when computing trust values. - On computing arguments and attacks in assumption-based argumentation
D. Gaertner, F. Toni.
IEEE Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Argumentation technology, Volume 22,
Abstract: We present a system implementing a methodology for determining the "acceptability" of claims with respect to the general-purpose framework of assumption-based argumentation, under the semantics of admissible extensions. This framework reduces the problem of computing arguments against and in favour of claims to the problem of computing assumptions supporting these arguments. Our system manipulates sets of assumptions, as earlier computational models of assumption-based argumentation do, while at the same time rendering explicit the underlying dialectical structure of arguments (by a proponent) and counter-arguments (by an opponent) that was implicit earlier. Thus, our system is beneficial to developing applications of argumentation where explicit justifications of claims in terms of full argument structures are required - Preferences and Assumption-based Argumentation for Conflict-Free Normative Agents
F. Toni and D. Gaertner
ArgMAS (Revised Selected and Invited Papers, Rahwan, Parsons and Reed (Eds.), Springer LNCS 4946
- Modular Argumentation For Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract
Phan Minh Dung, Phan Minh Thang AIT
JURIX08, Florence, Italy, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 189, pp. 108-117, IOS Press
Abstract: To create a programming environment in which autonomous agents could be built to resolve contract disputes, we propose an extension of assumption based argumentation (ABA) into modular assumption-based argumentation (MABA) in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases for reasoning about beliefs and facts and for representation and reasoning with the legal doctrines could be built and assembled together. A distinct novel feature of modular argumentation in compare with other modular logic-based systems like Prolog is that it allows references to different semantics in the same module at the same time, a feature critically important for application of argumentation in legal domains like contract dispute resolution where the outcomes of court cases often depend on whether credulous or sceptical modes of reasoning were applied by the contract parties. We apply the new framework to model the doctrines of contract breach and mutual mistake. - Deriving Implementable Roles from Agent Interaction Protocols Represented as Games.
C. Kloukinas, G. K. Lekeas, and K. Stathis. RHUL
6th European Workshop on Multiagent Systems, Bath, UK
Abstract: - - On the benefits of argumentation for negotiation - preliminary version
A. Hussain and F. Toni Imperial
Proceedings of EUMAS
Abstract: - - The Agent Argumentation Architecture Revisited
Maxime Morge and Kostas Stathis UNIPI, RHUL
Proc. of the Sixth European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS), Bath, UK.
Abstract: The Agent Argumentation Architecture (AAA) has been recently proposed as an abstract model by means of which an autonomous agent argues with itself to manage its motivations and arbitrate its possibly conflicting internal goals. In an attempt to show how the AAA model can be instantiated, we revisit the original model with a concrete argumentation framework illustrating how the internal dialectic process can be specified as a dialogue-game between internal components representing the agent's mental faculties. The resulting framework is exemplified with an intuitive case, illustrating the importance of argumentation to develop models of cognitive agents with motivations.
