The Bail-Out! Positive Political Economics of Greek-type Crises in the EMU

The Greek bail-out was highly controversial. An oft-heard assessment is that i) the bail-out was a mistake, ii) the political haggling over it was irrational and iii) the bail-out will create a moral hazard problem. Contrary to this view, our analysis suggests that, given EMU’s present political-economic set-up, i) the bail-out was unavoidable, ii) the lengthy process of political haggling leading to it was understandable, and iii) the bail-out does not have to be necessarily associated with a future moral hazard problem. Based on our analysis, we suggest that the EMU’s institutional design could be improved by establishing ‘exit rules’ and that bail-outs should be made rule-based. We have based our analysis on a political-economic, game-theoretic model that helps to understand why and how the parties involved in the Greek crisis arrived at the bail-out and on what conditions the final solution depended. The model allows tracing analytically the dynamics of the negotiation processes as well as the conditions and parameters on which the scope and limits of fiscal redistribution in EMU depends. In doing so, we formally take account of the ‘negative externality’ problem that has been central to policy debates related to the EMU’s institutional design and has played an important role in the Greek crisis. However, contrary to the existing literature, we do not only focus on the economic aspects of such negative externality, but also look at where they emanate from and interact with political factors, in particular the dynamics of the political negotiation process within the EMU.Greek crisis, bail-out, negative externality, political economics, game theory, euro, EMU

Automated Algorithmic Machine-to-Machine Negotiation for Lane Changes Performed by Driverless Vehicles at the Edge of the Internet of Things

This dissertation creates and examines algorithmic models for automated machine-to-machine negotiation in localized multi-agent systems at the edge of the Internet of Things. It provides an implementation of two such models for unsupervised resource allocation for the application domain of autonomous vehicle traffic as it pertains to lane changing and speed setting selection. The first part concerns negotiation via abstract argumentation. A general model for the arbitration of conflict based on abstract argumentation is outlined and then applied to a scenario where autonomous vehicles on a multi-lane highway use expert systems in consultation with private objectives to form arguments and use them to compete for lane positions. The conflict resolution component of the resulting argumentation framework is augmented with social voting to achieve a community supported conflict-free outcome. The presented model heralds a step toward independent negotiation through automated argumentation in distributed multi-agent systems. Many other cyber-physical environments embody stages for opposing positions that may benefit from this type of tool for collaboration. The second part deals with game-theoretic negotiation through mechanism design. It outlines a mechanism providing resource allocation for a fee and applies it to autonomous vehicle traffic. Vehicular agents apply for speed and lane assignments with sealed bids containing their private feasible action valuations determined within the context of their governing objective. A truth-inducing mechanism implementing an incentive-compatible strategyproof social choice functions achieves a socially optimal outcome. The model can be adapted to many application fields through the definition of a domain-appropriate operation to be used by the allocation function of the mechanism. Both presented prototypes conduct operations at the edge of the Internet of Things. They can be applied to agent networks in just about any domain where the sharing of resources is required. The social voting argumentation approach is a minimal but powerful tool facilitating the democratic process when a community makes decisions on the sharing or rationing of common-pool assets. The mechanism design model can create social welfare maximizing allocations for multiple or multidimensional resources

Combining Norms, Roles, Dependence and Argumentation in Agreement Technologies

A major challenge for Agreement Technologies is the combination of existing technologies and rea- soning methods. In this paper we focus on the three core layers of the Agreement Technologies tower, called Norms, Organization and Argumentation. We present a framework for arguing about agreements based on norms, roles and dependence, together with a case study from the sharing economy

Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI: Volume 1

This volume contains revised versions of the papers selected for the first volume of the Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI (OHAAI). Previously, formal theories of argument and argument interaction have been proposed and studied, and this has led to the more recent study of computational models of argument. Argumentation, as a field within artificial intelligence (AI), is highly relevant for researchers interested in symbolic representations of knowledge and defeasible reasoning. The purpose of this handbook is to provide an open access and curated anthology for the argumentation research community. OHAAI is designed to serve as a research hub to keep track of the latest and upcoming PhD-driven research on the theory and application of argumentation in all areas related to AI.Comment: editor: Federico Castagna and Francesca Mosca and Jack Mumford and Stefan Sarkadi and Andreas Xydi

Interpretability of Gradual Semantics in Abstract Argumentation

International audiencergumentation, in the field of Artificial Intelligence, is a for-malism allowing to reason with contradictory information as well as tomodel an exchange of arguments between one or several agents. For thispurpose, many semantics have been defined with, amongst them, grad-ual semantics aiming to assign an acceptability degree to each argument.Although the number of these semantics continues to increase, there iscurrently no method allowing to explain the results returned by thesesemantics. In this paper, we study the interpretability of these seman-tics by measuring, for each argument, the impact of the other argumentson its acceptability degree. We define a new property and show that thescore of an argument returned by a gradual semantics which satisfies thisproperty can also be computed by aggregating the impact of the otherarguments on it. This result allows to provide, for each argument in anargumentation framework, a ranking between arguments from the most to the least impacting ones w.r.t a given gradual semantic

Preface to the Special Issue on Advances in Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence

Now at the forefront of automated reasoning, argumentation has become a key research topic within Artificial Intelligence. It involves the investigation of those activities for the production and exchange of arguments, where arguments are attempts to persuade someone of something by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion or claim as evident. The study of argumentation has been the focus of attention of philosophers and scholars, from Aristotle and classical rhetoric to the present day. The computational study of arguments has emerged as a field of research in AI in the last two decades, mainly fuelled by the interest from scholars in logics, non-monotonic and epistemic reasoning, and in related disciplines such as Law, Sociology and Computational Linguistics. This special issue collects a selection of five papers from the 2nd Workshop on Advances In Argumentation In Artificial Intelligence, co-located with AI*IA 2018, the 17th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence held in Trento in November 2018. The workshop was organized as part of the activities of the Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence Working Group. The Argumentation Group is a working group of the Associazione Italiana per l’Intelligenza Artificiale (AI*IA) whose general goal is to promote Italian scientific activities in the field of Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, and foster collaborations between research groups. The selected papers discuss theoretical foundations in argumentation as well as challenges and real-world problems for which argumentation may represent a viable AI-paradigm. Each submission underwent a single-blind peer-review process and the five accepted articles were reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers. Much work in computational models of argument is centered on Dung’ seminal 1995 paper “On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.”. On the one hand, this is reflected by the papers presented in this special issue, with four out of five papers describing works directly linked to Dung’s abstract framework or to its extensions. On the other hand, the papers also testify the variety and richness of the current state-of-the-art of argumentation studies, which extends and goes far beyond Dung’s work, proposing research combining natural language processing and probabilistic reasoning with abstract argumentation The papers by Flesca, Dondio and Longo, and Taticchi and Bistarelli are theoretical works in the area of computational argumentation. The paper by Flesca examines the problem of efficiently computing the probability of the extensions of bipolar probabilistic argumentation frameworks, proposing a set of more efficient and empirically-tested algorithms. The paper by Dondio and Longo introduces a novel abstract argumentation semantics. Inspired by the ambiguity blocking semantics of defeasible logic, the authors propose a semantics where the undecided label assigned to some arguments could be blocked instead of being propagated to attacked arguments. The paper by Taticchi and Bistarelli proposes a cooperative-game approach to share acceptability and rank arguments of an argumentation framework. The paper by Gobbo et al. proposes a new method for annotating arguments expressed in natural language, called adpositional argumentation. By doing so, they provide the guidelines for designing a gold standard corpus that could benefit studies in argumentation mining and arguments definition. The paper by Pazienza et al. proposes an interesting application of abstract argumentation to financial predictions. The authors design a framework combining natural language processing along with abstract argumentation techniques to automatically extract relevant arguments from Earning Conference Call transcripts, weight such arguments and produce a final advice aimed to anticipate and predict analysts’ recommendations. Finally, the Editors are like to acknowledge the work of the members of the Programme Committee whose invaluable expertise and efforts have led to the selection of the papers included in this special issue. Last but not least, the editors would like to thank all the authors that have contributed to this special issue

Case-Based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies

[EN] In multi-agent systems, agents perform complex tasks that require different levels of intelligence and give rise to interactions among them. From these interactions, conflicts of opinion can arise, especially when these systems become open, with heterogeneous agents dynamically entering or leaving the system. Therefore, agents willing to participate in this type of system will be required to include extra capabilities to explicitly represent and generate agreements on top of the simpler ability to interact. Furthermore, agents in multiagent systems can form societies, which impose social dependencies on them. These dependencies have a decisive influence in the way agents interact and reach agreements. Argumentation provides a natural means of dealing with conflicts of interest and opinion. Agents can reach agreements by engaging in argumentation dialogues with their opponents in a discussion. In addition, agents can take advantage of previous argumentation experiences to follow dialogue strategies and persuade other agents to accept their opinions. Our insight is that case-based reasoning can be very useful to manage argumentation in open multi-agent systems and devise dialogue strategies based on previous argumentation experiences. To demonstrate the foundations of this suggestion, this paper presents the work that we have done to develop case-based dialogue strategies in agent societies. Thus, we propose a case-based argumentation framework for agent societies and define heuristic dialogue strategies based on it. The framework has been implemented and evaluated in a real customer support application.This work is supported by the Spanish Government Grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO 2008/051].Heras Barberá, SM.; Jordan Prunera, JM.; Botti, V.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2013). Case-Based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies. Information Sciences. 223:1-30. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2012.10.007S13022