Abstract
This paper studies the application of argumentation theory and methods from Artificial Intelligence to the problem of conflict resolution. It shows how the decision theories of each of the parties involved in a conflict can be captured and formalized within a framework of preference-based argumentation. In particular, it studies how the SoDA methodology and its support tool, Gorgias-B for developing argumentation software, facilitate the elucidation of each party’s preferences over their available options for addressing the conflict, and, through this, the construction of appropriate argumentation theories corresponding to the decision theories of the parties involved. These argumentation theories are generated automatically and can be executed directly to find out the position of each party at any particular stage of the negotiation process. This connection between argumentation and conflict resolution is illustrated through a real-life example of conflict resolution between the US and China after a plane collision.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
SPEM is a standard for defining software processes, http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/.
- 2.
For simplicity we will assume that the background theory is monotonic, i.e. contains strict information that is not defeasible. Otherwise, the same process needs to be followed for the defeasible belief predicates in analogy with the process for the option predicates that we are describing here.
- 3.
Note that the condition \(goal(saving\_face)\) does not appear in this fragment of the China theory as this condition only plays a role in the default preference of the all the options over the first option of \(accept(regret\_yihan)\) which we are not considered in this fragment.
- 4.
Gorgias-B is a Java application with a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is freely downloadable from its web-site and can execute in a computer with the minimum requirements of a Windows OS, SWI-Prolog version 7.0 or later, and Java version 1.7 or later. Download it from http://gorgiasb.tuc.gr.
References
Aulinas, M., Tolchinsky, P., Turon, C., Poch, M., Cortés, U.: Argumentation-based framework for industrial wastewater discharges management. Eng. Appl. AI 25(2), 317–325 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2011.09.016
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 619–641 (2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001
Carrera, Á., Iglesias, C.A.: A systematic review of argumentation techniques for multi-agent systems research. Artif. Intell. Rev. 44(4), 509–535 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10462-015-9435-9
Chow, H.K.H., Siu, W., Chan, C., Chan, H.C.B.: An argumentation-oriented multi-agent system for automating the freight planning process. Expert Syst. Appl. 40(10), 3858–3871 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.042
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Fox, J., Glasspool, D., Patkar, V., Austin, M., Black, L., South, M., Robertson, D., Vincent, C.: Delivering clinical decision support services: there is nothing as practical as a good theory. J. Biomed. Inform. 43(5), 831–843 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2010.06.002
Fraser, N.M., Garcia, F.: Conflict analysis of the NAFTA negotiations. Group Decis. Negot. 3(4), 373–391 (1994). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01414412
Fraser, N., Hipel, K.: Conflict analysis: models and resolutions. North-Holland series in system science and engineering, North-Holland (1984)
Huang, S., Lin, C.: The search for potentially interesting products in an e-marketplace: an agent-to-agent argumentation approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(6), 4468–4478 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.064
Hunter, A., Williams, M.: Aggregation of clinical evidence using argumentation: a tutorial introduction. In: Foundations of Biomedical Knowledge Representation - Methods and Applications, pp. 317–337 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28007-3_20
Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 883–890 (2003). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/860575.860717
Makriyiannis, M., Lung, T., Craven, R., Toni, F., Kelly, J.: Smarter electricity and argumentation theory. In: Hatzilygeroudis, I., Palade, V., Prentzas, J. (eds.) Combinations of Intelligent Methods and Applications. SIST, vol. 46, pp. 79–95. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26860-6_5
Pashaei, K., Taghiyareh, F., Badie, K.: A negotiation-based genetic framework for multi-agent credit assignment. In: Müller, J.P., Weyrich, M., Bazzan, A.L.C. (eds.) MATES 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8732, pp. 72–89. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11584-9_6
Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, 1st edn. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated (2009)
Shakun, M.F.: Modeling and supporting task-oriented group processes: purposeful complex adaptive systems and evolutionary systems design. Group Decis. Negot. 5(4), 305–317 (1996). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00553905
Shakun, M.F.: United States-China plane collision negotiation. Group Decis. Negot. 12(6), 477–480 (2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000004348.68980.4d
Spanoudakis, N.I., Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Applications of argumentation: the SoDA methodology. In: 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2016), The Hague, Holland, 29 August–2 September (2016)
Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Bottom-up argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 249–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_16
Velaga, N.R., Rotstein, N.D., Oren, N., Nelson, J.D., Norman, T.J., Wright, S.: Development of an integrated flexible transport systems platform for rural areas using argumentation theory. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 3, 62–70 (2012). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210539512000090, flexible Transport Services
Wang, G., Wong, T.N., Wang, X.H.: A negotiation protocol to support agent argumentation and ontology interoperability in mas-based virtual enterprises. In: Seventh International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, ITNG 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 12–14 April 2010, pp. 448–453 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ITNG.2010.39
Zhang, W., Liang, Y., Ji, S., Tian, Q.: Argumentation agent based fire emergency rescue project making. In: 2012 IEEE Symposium on Robotics and Applications (ISRA), pp. 892–895, June 2012
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Spanoudakis, N.I., Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P. (2017). Conflicts Resolution with the SoDA Methodology. In: Aydoğan, R., Baarslag, T., Gerding, E., Jonker, C., Julian, V., Sanchez-Anguix, V. (eds) Conflict Resolution in Decision Making. COREDEMA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10238. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57285-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57285-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57284-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57285-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)