18,922 research outputs found
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
KEMNAD: A Knowledge Engineering Methodology for Negotiating Agent Development
Automated negotiation is widely applied in various domains. However, the development of such systems is a complex knowledge and software engineering task. So, a methodology there will be helpful. Unfortunately, none of existing methodologies can offer sufficient, detailed support for such system development. To remove this limitation, this paper develops a new methodology made up of: (1) a generic framework (architectural pattern) for the main task, and (2) a library of modular and reusable design pattern (templates) of subtasks. Thus, it is much easier to build a negotiating agent by assembling these standardised components rather than reinventing the wheel each time. Moreover, since these patterns are identified from a wide variety of existing negotiating agents(especially high impact ones), they can also improve the quality of the final systems developed. In addition, our methodology reveals what types of domain knowledge need to be input into the negotiating agents. This in turn provides a basis for developing techniques to acquire the domain knowledge from human users. This is important because negotiation agents act faithfully on the behalf of their human users and thus the relevant domain knowledge must be acquired from the human users. Finally, our methodology is validated with one high impact system
A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation Semantics for Extended Logic Programming and its Application to the Well-founded Semantics
Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for
assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents
and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an
argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this
paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs
from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of
argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by
proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships
between the semantics and examine some essential properties concerning
consistency and the coherence principle, which relates default negation and
explicit negation. Most significantly, we place existing semantics put forward
in the literature in our hierarchy and identify a particular argumentation
semantics for which we prove equivalence to the paraconsistent well-founded
semantics with explicit negation, WFSX. Finally, we present a general proof
theory, based on dialogue trees, and show that it is sound and complete with
respect to the argumentation semantics.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin
Legitimation and Strategic Maneuvering in the Political Field
This article combines a pragma-dialectical conception of argumentation, a sociological conception of legitimacy and a sociological theory of the political field. In particular, it draws on the theorization of the political field developed by Pierre Bourdieu and tries to determine what new insights into the concept of strategic maneuvering might be offered by a sociological analysis of the political field. I analyze a speech made by the President of Romania, Traian Băsescu, following his suspension by Parliament in April 2007. I suggest that the argument developed in this speech can be regarded as an example of adjudication and I discuss its specificity as an adjudication in the political field in an electoral campaign. I also try to relate legitimation as political strategy to strategic maneuvering oriented to meeting the contradictory demands of the political field, which I see—following Bourdieu—as involving a double political game, a game of democratic representation and a game of power
Social Influence and the Generation of Joint Mental Attitudes in Multi-agent Systems
This work examines the social structural and cognitive foundations of joint mental attitudes in complexly differentated multi-agent systems, and incorporates insights from a variety of disciplines, including mainstream Distributed Artificial Intelligence, sociology, administrative science, social psychology, and organisational perspectives. At the heart of this work lies the understanding of the on-going processes by which socially and cognitively differentiated agents come to be socially and cognitively integrated. Here we claim that such understanding rests on the consideration of the nature of the influence processes that affect socialisation intensity. To this end, we provide a logic-based computational model of social influence and we undertake a set of virtual experiments to investigate whether and to what extent this process, when it is played out in a system of negotiating agents, results in a modification of the agents' mental attitudes and impacts on negotiation performance
- …