Dispute Resolution Using Argumentation-Based Mediation

Mediation is a process, in which both parties agree to resolve their dispute by negotiating over alternative solutions presented by a mediator. In order to construct such solutions, mediation brings more information and knowledge, and, if possible, resources to the negotiation table. The contribution of this paper is the automated mediation machinery which does that. It presents an argumentation-based mediation approach that extends the logic-based approach to argumentation-based negotiation involving BDI agents. The paper describes the mediation algorithm. For comparison it illustrates the method with a case study used in an earlier work. It demonstrates how the computational mediator can deal with realistic situations in which the negotiating agents would otherwise fail due to lack of knowledge and/or resources.Comment: 6 page

Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics

The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through, effectively, CTL (computation tree logic) encoding, which also permits importation of the theoretical results known to the logic into our argumentation frameworks. Our aim is to complement the growing interest in coordination of static and dynamic argumentation.Comment: Arisaka R., Satoh K. (2018) Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics. In: Miller T., Oren N., Sakurai Y., Noda I., Savarimuthu B., Cao Son T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11224. Springer, Cha

Beliefs and Conflicts in a Real World Multiagent System

In a real world multiagent system, where the agents are faced with partial, incomplete and intrinsically dynamic knowledge, conflicts are inevitable. Frequently, different agents have goals or beliefs that cannot hold simultaneously. Conflict resolution methodologies have to be adopted to overcome such undesirable occurrences. In this paper we investigate the application of distributed belief revision techniques as the support for conflict resolution in the analysis of the validity of the candidate beams to be produced in the CERN particle accelerators. This CERN multiagent system contains a higher hierarchy agent, the Specialist agent, which makes use of meta-knowledge (on how the conflicting beliefs have been produced by the other agents) in order to detect which beliefs should be abandoned. Upon solving a conflict, the Specialist instructs the involved agents to revise their beliefs accordingly. Conflicts in the problem domain are mapped into conflicting beliefs of the distributed belief revision system, where they can be handled by proven formal methods. This technique builds on well established concepts and combines them in a new way to solve important problems. We find this approach generally applicable in several domains

Arguing Using Opponent Models

Peer reviewedPostprin

A Concurrent Language for Argumentation: Preliminary Notes

While agent-based modelling languages naturally implement concurrency, the currently available languages for argumentation do not allow to explicitly model this type of interaction. In this paper we introduce a concurrent language for handling process arguing and communicating using a shared argumentation framework (reminding shared constraint store as in concurrent constraint). We introduce also basic expansions, contraction and revision procedures as main bricks for enforcement, debate, negotiation and persuasion

A fixed-point property of logic-based bargaining solution

Abstract. This paper presents a logic-based bargaining solution based on Zhang and Zhang’s framework. It is shown that if the demand sets of players are logically closed, the solution satisfies a fixed-point property, which says that the outcome of bargaining is the result of mutual belief revision. The result is interesting not only because it presents a desirable logical property of bargaining solution but also establishes a link between bargaining theory and multi-agent belief revision.

An Approach to Argumentation Context Mining from Dialogue History in an E-Market Scenario

Argumentation allows agents to exchange additional information to argue about their beliefs and other mental attitudes during the negotiation process. Utterances and subsequent observations may differ during argumentation due to the gap in internal and external information with other agent. Contextual information is one reason of deviation between utterance and subsequent observations. Historic dialogues are a key source for extracting contextual information regarding illocutions, ontological category or semantically similar category. How historical dialogues contribute to contextual information during argument generation, selection and evaluation process is crucial to modeling the commonsense that human being apply in managing dialogues. Identifying, managing and augmenting contextual information and use that information in agent dialogue requires attention to several dimensions, e.g., illocution, interaction protocol, ontology, context, contract etc. which is an important problem in electronic market research area. This paper presents an approach for extraction of argumentation context from historical dialogues between intelligent agents in e-market. We are developing an argumentation system to extract context from historical dialogue and exploit context for dialogue moves between agents. An agent architecture using context monitor, context network, context miner is presented for argumentation context minin