Bridging the specification protocol gap in argumentation

As multi-agent systems (MAS) have become more mature and systems in general have become more distributed, it is necessary for those who want to build large scale systems to consider, in some computational depth, how agents can communicate in large scale, complex and distributed systems. Currently, some MAS systems have been developed to use an abstract specification language for argumentation. This as a basis for agent communication; to provide effective decision support for agents and yield better agreements. However, as we build complete MAS that involve argumentation, there is a need to produce concrete implementations in which these abstract specifications are realised via protocols coordinating agent behaviour. This creates a gap between standard argument specification and deployment of protocols. This thesis attempts to close this gap by using a combination of automated synthesis and verification methods. More precisely, this thesis proposes a means of moving rapidly from argument specification to protocol implementation using an extension of the Argument Interchange Format (AIF is a generic specification language for argument structure) called a Dialogue Interaction Diagram (DID) as the dialogue game specification language and the Lightweight Coordination Calculus (LCC is an executable specification language used for coordinating agents in open systems) as an implementation language. The main contribution of this research is to provide approaches for enabling developers of dialogue game argumentation systems to use specification languages (in our case AIF/DID) to generate agent protocol systems that are capable of direct implementation on open infrastructures (in our case LCC)

Analysis of Dialogical Argumentation via Finite State Machines

Dialogical argumentation is an important cognitive activity by which agents exchange arguments and counterarguments as part of some process such as discussion, debate, persuasion and negotiation. Whilst numerous formal systems have been proposed, there is a lack of frameworks for implementing and evaluating these proposals. First-order executable logic has been proposed as a general framework for specifying and analysing dialogical argumentation. In this paper, we investigate how we can implement systems for dialogical argumentation using propositional executable logic. Our approach is to present and evaluate an algorithm that generates a finite state machine that reflects a propositional executable logic specification for a dialogical argumentation together with an initial state. We also consider how the finite state machines can be analysed, with the minimax strategy being used as an illustration of the kinds of empirical analysis that can be undertaken.Comment: 10 page

DR-NEGOTIATE - A System for Automated Agent Negotiation with Defeasible Logic-Based Strategies

This paper reports on a system for automated agent negotiation. It uses the JADE agent framework, and its major distinctive feature is the use of declarative negotiation strategies. The negotiation strategies are expressed in a declarative rules language, defeasible logic and are applied using the implemented defeasible reasoning system DR-DEVICE. The choice of defeasible logic is justified. The overall system architecture is described, and a particular negotiation case is presented in detail

Executable specication of open multi-agent systems

Multi-agent systems where the agents are developed by parties with competing interests, and where there is no access to an agent's internal state, are often classi ed as `open'. The members of such systems may inadvertently fail to, or even deliberately choose not to, conform to the system speci cation. Consequently, it is necessary to specify the normative relations that may exist between the members, such as permission, obligation, and institutional power. We present a framework being developed for executable speci cation of open multi-agent systems. We adopt a bird's eye view of these systems, as opposed to an agent's perspective whereby it reasons about how it should act. This paper is devoted to the presentation of various examples from the NetBill protocol formalised in terms of institutional power, permission and obligation. We express the system speci cation in the Event Calculus and execute the speci cation by means of a logic programming implementation. We also give several example formalisations of sanctions for dealing with violations of permissions and obligations. We distinguish between an open multi-agent system and the procedure by which an agent enters and leaves the system. We present examples from the speci cation of a role-management protocol for NetBill, and demonstrate the interplay between such a protocol and the corresponding multi-agent system

A Critical Discussion Game for Prohibiting Fallacies

The study of fallacies is at the heart of argumentation studies. In response to Hamblin’s devastating critique of the state of the theory of fallacies in 1970, both formal dialectical and informal approaches to fallacies developed. In the current paper, we focus on an influential informal approach to fallacies, part of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Central to the pragma-dialectical method for analysing and evaluating argumentative discourse is the ideal model of a critical discussion. In this discussion model, a dialectical perspective on argumentation is combined with a pragmatic take on communicative interaction. By formalising and computationally implementing the model of a critical discussion, we take a first step in the development of software to computationally model argumentative dialogue in which fallacies are prohibited along the pragmadialectical norms. We do this by defining the Critical Discussion Game, a formal dialogue game based on the pragma-dialectical discussion model, executable on an online user-interface which is part of a larger infrastructure of argumentation software

Re-use of tests and arguments for assesing dependable mixed-critically systems

The safety assessment of mixed-criticality systems (MCS) is a challenging activity due to system heterogeneity, design constraints and increasing complexity. The foundation for MCSs is the integrated architecture paradigm, where a compact hardware comprises multiple execution platforms and communication interfaces to implement concurrent functions with different safety requirements. Besides a computing platform providing adequate isolation and fault tolerance mechanism, the development of an MCS application shall also comply with the guidelines defined by the safety standards. A way to lower the overall MCS certification cost is to adopt a platform-based design (PBD) development approach. PBD is a model-based development (MBD) approach, where separate models of logic, hardware and deployment support the analysis of the resulting system properties and behaviour. The PBD development of MCSs benefits from a composition of modular safety properties (e.g. modular safety cases), which support the derivation of mixed-criticality product lines. The validation and verification (V&V) activities claim a substantial effort during the development of programmable electronics for safety-critical applications. As for the MCS dependability assessment, the purpose of the V&V is to provide evidences supporting the safety claims. The model-based development of MCSs adds more V&V tasks, because additional analysis (e.g., simulations) need to be carried out during the design phase. During the MCS integration phase, typically hardware-in-the-loop (HiL) plant simulators support the V&V campaigns, where test automation and fault-injection are the key to test repeatability and thorough exercise of the safety mechanisms. This dissertation proposes several V&V artefacts re-use strategies to perform an early verification at system level for a distributed MCS, artefacts that later would be reused up to the final stages in the development process: a test code re-use to verify the fault-tolerance mechanisms on a functional model of the system combined with a non-intrusive software fault-injection, a model to X-in-the-loop (XiL) and code-to-XiL re-use to provide models of the plant and distributed embedded nodes suited to the HiL simulator, and finally, an argumentation framework to support the automated composition and staged completion of modular safety-cases for dependability assessment, in the context of the platform-based development of mixed-criticality systems relying on the DREAMS harmonized platform.La dificultad para evaluar la seguridad de los sistemas de criticidad mixta (SCM) aumenta con la heterogeneidad del sistema, las restricciones de diseño y una complejidad creciente. Los SCM adoptan el paradigma de arquitectura integrada, donde un hardware embebido compacto comprende múltiples plataformas de ejecución e interfaces de comunicación para implementar funciones concurrentes y con diferentes requisitos de seguridad. Además de una plataforma de computación que provea un aislamiento y mecanismos de tolerancia a fallos adecuados, el desarrollo de una aplicación SCM además debe cumplir con las directrices definidas por las normas de seguridad. Una forma de reducir el coste global de la certificación de un SCM es adoptar un enfoque de desarrollo basado en plataforma (DBP). DBP es un enfoque de desarrollo basado en modelos (DBM), en el que modelos separados de lógica, hardware y despliegue soportan el análisis de las propiedades y el comportamiento emergente del sistema diseñado. El desarrollo DBP de SCMs se beneficia de una composición modular de propiedades de seguridad (por ejemplo, casos de seguridad modulares), que facilitan la definición de líneas de productos de criticidad mixta. Las actividades de verificación y validación (V&V) representan un esfuerzo sustancial durante el desarrollo de aplicaciones basadas en electrónica confiable. En la evaluación de la seguridad de un SCM el propósito de las actividades de V&V es obtener las evidencias que apoyen las aseveraciones de seguridad. El desarrollo basado en modelos de un SCM incrementa las tareas de V&V, porque permite realizar análisis adicionales (por ejemplo, simulaciones) durante la fase de diseño. En las campañas de pruebas de integración de un SCM habitualmente se emplean simuladores de planta hardware-in-the-loop (HiL), en donde la automatización de pruebas y la inyección de faltas son la clave para la repetitividad de las pruebas y para ejercitar completamente los mecanismos de tolerancia a fallos. Esta tesis propone diversas estrategias de reutilización de artefactos de V&V para la verificación temprana de un MCS distribuido, artefactos que se emplearán en ulteriores fases del desarrollo: la reutilización de código de prueba para verificar los mecanismos de tolerancia a fallos sobre un modelo funcional del sistema combinado con una inyección de fallos de software no intrusiva, la reutilización de modelo a X-in-the-loop (XiL) y código a XiL para obtener modelos de planta y nodos distribuidos aptos para el simulador HiL y, finalmente, un marco de argumentación para la composición automatizada y la compleción escalonada de casos de seguridad modulares, en el contexto del desarrollo basado en plataformas de sistemas de criticidad mixta empleando la plataforma armonizada DREAMS.Kritikotasun nahastuko sistemen segurtasun ebaluazioa jarduera neketsua da beraien heterogeneotasuna dela eta. Sistema hauen oinarria arkitektura integratuen paradigman datza, non hardware konpaktu batek exekuzio plataforma eta komunikazio interfaze ugari integratu ahal dituen segurtasun baldintza desberdineko funtzio konkurrenteak inplementatzeko. Konputazio plataformek isolamendu eta akatsen aurkako mekanismo egokiak emateaz gain, segurtasun arauek definituriko jarraibideak jarraitu behar dituzte kritikotasun mistodun aplikazioen garapenean. Sistema hauen zertifikazio prozesuaren kostua murrizteko aukera bat plataformetan oinarritutako garapenean (PBD) datza. Garapen planteamendu hau modeloetan oinarrituriko garapena da (MBD) non modeloaren logika, hardware eta garapen desberdinak sistemaren propietateen eta portaeraren aurka aztertzen diren. Kritikotasun mistodun sistemen PBD garapenak etekina ateratzen dio moduluetan oinarrituriko segurtasun propietateei, adibidez: segurtasun kasu modularrak (MSC). Modulu hauek kritikotasun mistodun produktu-lerroak ere hartzen dituzte kontutan. Berifikazio eta balioztatze (V&V) jarduerek esfortzu kontsideragarria eskatzen dute segurtasun-kiritikoetarako elektronika programagarrien garapenean. Kritikotasun mistodun sistemen konfiantzaren ebaluazioaren eta V&V jardueren helburua segurtasun eskariak jasotzen dituzten frogak proportzionatzea da. Kritikotasun mistodun sistemen modelo bidezko garapenek zeregin gehigarriak atxikitzen dizkio V&V jarduerari, fase honetan analisi gehigarriak (hots, simulazioak) zehazten direlako. Bestalde, kritikotasun mistodun sistemen integrazio fasean, hardware-in-the-loop (Hil) simulazio plantek V&V iniziatibak sostengatzen dituzte non testen automatizazioan eta akatsen txertaketan funtsezko jarduerak diren. Jarduera hauek frogen errepikapena eta segurtasun mekanismoak egiaztzea ahalbidetzen dute. Tesi honek V&V artefaktuen berrerabilpenerako estrategiak proposatzen ditu, kritikotasun mistodun sistemen egiaztatze azkarrerako sistema mailan eta garapen prozesuko azken faseetaraino erabili daitezkeenak. Esate baterako, test kodearen berrabilpena akats aurkako mekanismoak egiaztatzeko, modelotik X-in-the-loop (XiL)-ra eta kodetik XiL-rako konbertsioa HiL simulaziorako eta argumentazio egitura bat DREAMS Europear proiektuan definituriko arkitektura estiloan oinarrituriko segurtasun kasu modularrak automatikoki eta gradualki sortzeko

Argumentation-based methods for multi-perspective cooperative planning

Through cooperation, agents can transcend their individual capabilities and achieve goals that would be unattainable otherwise. Existing multiagent planning work considers each agent’s action capabilities, but does not account for distributed knowledge and the incompatible views agents may have of the planning domain. These divergent views can be a result of faulty sensors, local and incomplete knowledge, and outdated information, or simply because each agent has conducted different inferences and their beliefs are not aligned. This thesis is concerned with Multi-Perspective Cooperative Planning (MPCP), the problem of synthesising a plan for multiple agents which share a goal but hold different views about the state of the environment and the specification of the actions they can perform to affect it. Reaching agreement on a mutually acceptable plan is important, since cautious autonomous agents will not subscribe to plans that they individually believe to be inappropriate or even potentially hazardous. We specify the MPCP problem by adapting standard set-theoretic planning notation. Based on argumentation theory we define a new notion of plan acceptability, and introduce a novel formalism that combines defeasible logic programming and situation calculus that enables the succinct axiomatisation of contradictory planning theories and allows deductive argumentation-based inference. Our work bridges research in argumentation, reasoning about action and classical planning. We present practical methods for reasoning and planning with MPCP problems that exploit the inherent structure of planning domains and efficient planning heuristics. Finally, in order to allow distribution of tasks, we introduce a family of argumentation-based dialogue protocols that enable the agents to reach agreement on plans in a decentralised manner. Based on the concrete foundation of deductive argumentation we analytically investigate important properties of our methods illustrating the correctness of the proposed planning mechanisms. We also empirically evaluate the efficiency of our algorithms in benchmark planning domains. Our results illustrate that our methods can synthesise acceptable plans within reasonable time in large-scale domains, while maintaining a level of expressiveness comparable to that of modern automated planning

Defeasible-argumentation-based multi-agent planning

[EN] This paper presents a planning system that uses defeasible argumentation to reason about context information during the construction of a plan. The system is designed to operate in cooperative multi-agent environments where agents are endowed with planning and argumentation capabilities. Planning allows agents to contribute with actions to the construction of the plan, and argumentation is the mechanism that agents use to defend or attack the planning choices according to their beliefs. We present the formalization of the model and we provide a novel specification of the qualification problem. The multi-agent planning system, which is designed to be domain-independent, is evaluated with two planning tasks from the problem suites of the International Planning Competition. We compare our system with a non-argumentative planning framework and with a different approach of planning and argumentation. The results will show that our system obtains less costly and more robust solution plans.This work has been partly supported by the Spanish MINECO under project TIN2014-55637-C2-2-R and the Valencian project PROMETEO II/2013/019.Pajares Ferrando, S.; Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E. (2017). Defeasible-argumentation-based multi-agent planning. Information Sciences. 411:1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.05.014S12241