Modeling multiagent deliberation from an abstract standpoint

Simply put, a multiagent system can be understood as a collection of autonomous agents able to accomplish as a whole goals beyond the capabilities of any of its members. The traditional example depicts a heavy armchair that can be easily lifted by coordinating the effort of a group of persons despite that none of them would have been able to pick it up alone. Thus, one might argue that precisely the agent interaction is boosting the system performance. Since this interaction comes in several flavors, the literature has already explored notions such as agent coordination, cooperation, and collaboration in the context of multiagent systems. This extended abstract outlines our own understanding on this matter, summarizing the evolution of an abstract model for the particular kind of agent interaction known as deliberation. A group of agents deliberate whenever they need to come to a mutually accepted position about some issue. This interaction among agents has drawn our attention given its ubiquity: we believe that complex interactions such as coordination or cooperation might be attained as a result of accruing one or more deliberations. Our proposal is inspired after the novel trend of reinterpreting agent interaction as if it were the result of an argumentation process. For instance, several authors [2,3,5,13,14] have recently considered recasting the main aspects of multiagent negotiation in terms of defeasible argumentation. We follow a like approach in developing our model after a set of dialectical concepts borrowed from that same area. Our approach also strives for generality, mainly after Dung's ample success with his notion of argumentative framework due to its abstract nature. In consequence, we too have decided to pursue an abstract model.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Modeling multiagent deliberation from an abstract standpoint

Simply put, a multiagent system can be understood as a collection of autonomous agents able to accomplish as a whole goals beyond the capabilities of any of its members. The traditional example depicts a heavy armchair that can be easily lifted by coordinating the effort of a group of persons despite that none of them would have been able to pick it up alone. Thus, one might argue that precisely the agent interaction is boosting the system performance. Since this interaction comes in several flavors, the literature has already explored notions such as agent coordination, cooperation, and collaboration in the context of multiagent systems. This extended abstract outlines our own understanding on this matter, summarizing the evolution of an abstract model for the particular kind of agent interaction known as deliberation. A group of agents deliberate whenever they need to come to a mutually accepted position about some issue. This interaction among agents has drawn our attention given its ubiquity: we believe that complex interactions such as coordination or cooperation might be attained as a result of accruing one or more deliberations. Our proposal is inspired after the novel trend of reinterpreting agent interaction as if it were the result of an argumentation process. For instance, several authors [2,3,5,13,14] have recently considered recasting the main aspects of multiagent negotiation in terms of defeasible argumentation. We follow a like approach in developing our model after a set of dialectical concepts borrowed from that same area. Our approach also strives for generality, mainly after Dung's ample success with his notion of argumentative framework due to its abstract nature. In consequence, we too have decided to pursue an abstract model.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Defining the structure of well-formed argumentation lines in abstract frameworks

The area of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning has been enriched during the past two decades with the addition of Argument-Based Reasoning Systems. Defeat between arguments is established by a combination of two basic elements: a conflict or defeat relation, and a preference relation on the arguments involved in this conflict. The research activities are centered in our abstract framework for argumentation, where two kinds of defeat are present, depending on the outcome of the preference relation. This framework also takes subarguments into account, leading to the formalization of well formed argumentation lines.Eje: Agentes y Sistemas InteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Defining the structure of well-formed argumentation lines in abstract frameworks

The area of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning has been enriched during the past two decades with the addition of Argument-Based Reasoning Systems. Defeat between arguments is established by a combination of two basic elements: a conflict or defeat relation, and a preference relation on the arguments involved in this conflict. The research activities are centered in our abstract framework for argumentation, where two kinds of defeat are present, depending on the outcome of the preference relation. This framework also takes subarguments into account, leading to the formalization of well formed argumentation lines.Eje: Agentes y Sistemas InteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Analyzing the defeat relation in observation-based defeasible logic programming

In the last decade several ways to formalize defeasible reasoning have been studied. A particular approach, defeasible argumentation, has been particularly successful to achieve this goal. The inference process of argument-based systems is based on the interaction of ar- guments for and against certain conclusions. The relations of attack and defeat among arguments are key elements in these inference process. Usually a preference criterion is used to calculate the defeat relation to decide, in case of con ict, which argument is preferred over its contender. Speci city is a domain independent principle that has been used in several formalisms. In this work we analyze the problem of incorporating speci city to characterize defeat in a particular argumentative framework, called Observation Based Defeasible Logic Program- ming. Since e ciency is an important issue in ODeLP, we have devised a new version of this criterion, that optimizes the computation of the defeat relation. We also present a formal proof to show that this new version is equivalent to the old one.Eje: V - Workshop de agentes y sistemas inteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Analyzing the defeat relation in observation-based defeasible logic programming

In the last decade several ways to formalize defeasible reasoning have been studied. A particular approach, defeasible argumentation, has been particularly successful to achieve this goal. The inference process of argument-based systems is based on the interaction of ar- guments for and against certain conclusions. The relations of attack and defeat among arguments are key elements in these inference process. Usually a preference criterion is used to calculate the defeat relation to decide, in case of con ict, which argument is preferred over its contender. Speci city is a domain independent principle that has been used in several formalisms. In this work we analyze the problem of incorporating speci city to characterize defeat in a particular argumentative framework, called Observation Based Defeasible Logic Program- ming. Since e ciency is an important issue in ODeLP, we have devised a new version of this criterion, that optimizes the computation of the defeat relation. We also present a formal proof to show that this new version is equivalent to the old one.Eje: V - Workshop de agentes y sistemas inteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Introducir el manejo de múltiples criterios de comparación de argumentos en sistemas argumentativos

Esta línea de investigación explora la incorporación del manejo de multiplicidad de criterios de comparación de argumentos en Sistemas Argumentativos. El objetivo general es mejorar las capacidades de razonamiento de estos sistemas introduciendo mecanismos para que puedan soportar varios criterios y elegir el que mejor se ajusta a las necesidades o preferencias del usuario. Como resultado se intentarían desarrollar herramientas concretas de interacción entre el usuario y el sistema, las cuales permitan especificar de una manera declarativa cual es el criterio que se debe utilizar como así también la información que este necesita para realizar su tarea.Eje: Agentes y Sistemas InteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Towards an abstract characterization of the subargument relation

Dung’s classic framework is formed by abstract arguments and a binary relation denoting attacks between arguments. Several semantic elaboration and extensions based on this framework are present in the literature. The notion of subargument, however, was not widely studied as an abstract concept although it is an important part of fully implemented argument systems. In this paper we introduce the characterization of properties of a sensible subargument relation in abstract argumentation frameworksWorkshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Towards an abstract characterization of the subargument relation

Dung’s classic framework is formed by abstract arguments and a binary relation denoting attacks between arguments. Several semantic elaboration and extensions based on this framework are present in the literature. The notion of subargument, however, was not widely studied as an abstract concept although it is an important part of fully implemented argument systems. In this paper we introduce the characterization of properties of a sensible subargument relation in abstract argumentation frameworksWorkshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Properties of ABA+ for Non-Monotonic Reasoning

We investigate properties of ABA+, a formalism that extends the well studied structured argumentation formalism Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with a preference handling mechanism. In particular, we establish desirable properties that ABA+ semantics exhibit. These pave way to the satisfaction by ABA+ of some (arguably) desirable principles of preference handling in argumentation and nonmonotonic reasoning, as well as non-monotonic inference properties of ABA+ under various semantics.Comment: This is a revised version of the paper presented at the worksho