Antonis Kakas
ABSTRACT
This paper presents an argumentation based framework to support the decision making of an agent within a modular architecture for agents. The proposed argumentation framework is dynamic, with arguments and their strength depending on the particular context that the agent finds himself, thus allowing the agent to adapt his decisions in a changing environment. In addition, in order to enable the agent to operate within an open environment where the available information may be incomplete we have integrated abduction within this argumentation framework. This is particular useful when the agent finds himself in a dilemma and hence needs additional information to resolve this. We have also developed, motivated by work in Cognitive Psychology, within the same framework an argumentation based personality theory for agents thus incorporating a dimension of individuality in the decisions of the agent.
- L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In ICMAS-00, pp. 31--38, 2000. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- L. Amgoud and S. Parsons. Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In ATAL01, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Bondarenko, P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for default reasoning. Artificial Inelligence, 93(1-2):63--101, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In KR94, 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation process based on situation calculus. In Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2), pp. 257-282, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Dimopoulos and A. C. Kakas. Logic programming without negation as failure. ILPS'95, pp. 369--384, 1995.Google Scholar
- J. Doyle and M. Wellman. Representing preferences as ceteris paribus comparatives. In Working Notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Decision-Theoretic Planning, 1994.Google Scholar
- P.M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. In Artificial Intelligence, 77, pp. 321--357 (also in IJCAI'93), 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Ha. Preference Logics for Automated Decision Making. http://www.cs.uwm.edu/public/vu/papers/qdtsurvey.pdf.Google Scholar
- Great Ideas in Personality. Five-Factor Model. www.personalityresearch.org/bigfive.html, 2002.Google Scholar
- A. C. Kakas, P. Mancarella, and P.M. Dung. The acceptability semantics for logic programs. In Proc. ICLP'94, pp. 504--519, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A.C. Kakas, R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni. Abductive logic programming. In Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(6), pp. 719--770, 1992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. C. Kakas and P. Moraitis. Argumentative Agent Deliberation, Roles and Context. In Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA02), 2002.Google Scholar
- N. Karacapilidis and P. Moraitis. Engineering issues in inter-agent dialogues. In ECAI02, Lyon, France, 2002.Google Scholar
- J.A. Leite. Evolving Knowledge Bases. IOS Press, 2003.Google Scholar
- A. Maslow. Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row, New York, 1954.Google Scholar
- P. Morignot and B. Hayes-Roth. Adaptable motivational profiles for autonomous agents. Knowledge Systems Laboratory, TR KSL 95-01, Stanford University, 1995.Google Scholar
- S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N.R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguying. In Logic and Computation 8 (3), 261--292, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Prakken. Logical Tools for Modeling Legal Reasoning: A study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law, Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar
- H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. In Artficial Intelligence and Law Vol 4, pp. 331--368, 1996.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Sabater, C. Sierra, S. Parsons, and N.R. Jennings. Engineering executable agents using multi-context systems. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12, 2002.Google Scholar
- C. Sierra, N.R. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons. A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In ATAL-97, pp. 167--182, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Sycara. Argumentation: Planning other agents' plans. In IJCAI-89, pp. 517--523, 1989.Google Scholar
- S. Tan and J. Pearl. Qualitative decision theory. In AAAI-94, pp. 928--932, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Vincke Multi-criteria Decision Aid. John Wiley, 1992.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents
Recommendations
Dialogical two-agent decision making with assumption-based argumentation
AAMAS '14: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systemsMuch research has been devoted in recent years to argumentation-based decision making. However, less attention has been given to argumentation-based decision making amongst multiple agents. We present a multi-agent decision framework based on Assumption-...
Using argumentation to model agent decision making in economic experiments
In this paper we demonstrate how a qualitative framework for decision making can be used to model scenarios from experimental economic studies and we show how our approach explains the results that have been reported from such studies. Our framework is ...
An Argumentation-Based Approach for Decision Making
ICTAI '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 24th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence - Volume 01The formalisation of design decisions serves two purposes: To support the decision maker in choosing which decision to take (decision analysis), and to document the reasons behind decisions for future reference (decision documentation). Approaches which ...
Comments