Betting and Belief: Prediction Markets and Attribution of Climate Change

Despite much scientific evidence, a large fraction of the American public doubts that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. We present a simulation model as a computational test-bed for climate prediction markets. Traders adapt their beliefs about future temperatures based on the profits of other traders in their social network. We simulate two alternative climate futures, in which global temperatures are primarily driven either by carbon dioxide or by solar irradiance. These represent, respectively, the scientific consensus and a hypothesis advanced by prominent skeptics. We conduct sensitivity analyses to determine how a variety of factors describing both the market and the physical climate may affect traders' beliefs about the cause of global climate change. Market participation causes most traders to converge quickly toward believing the "true" climate model, suggesting that a climate market could be useful for building public consensus.Comment: All code and data for the model is available at http://johnjnay.com/predMarket/. Forthcoming in Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Pres

Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks

Nowadays, many websites allow social networking between their users in an explicit or implicit way. In this work, we show how argumentation schemes theory can provide a valuable help to formalize and structure on-line discussions and user opinions in decision support and business oriented websites that held social networks between their users. Two real case studies are studied and analysed. Then, guidelines to enhance social decision support and recommendations with argumentation are provided.This work summarises results of the authors joint research, funded by an STMS of the Agreement Technologies COST Action 0801, 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.; Atkinson, KM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Grasso, F.; Julian Inglada, VJ.; Mcburney, PJ. (2013). Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks. Artificial Intelligence Review. 39(1):39-62. doi:10.1007/s10462-012-9389-0S3962391Amgoud L (2009) Argumentation for decision making. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinAnderson P (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Iechnology and Standards Watch reportBentahar J, Meyer CJJ, Moulin B (2007) Securing agent-oriented systems: an argumentation and reputation-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on information technology: new generations (ITNG 2007), IEEE Computer Society, pp 507–515Buckingham Shum S (2008) Cohere: towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA, pp 28–30Burke R (2002) Hybrid recommender systems: survey and experiments. User Model User-Adapt Interact 12:331–370Cartwright D, Atkinson K (2008) Political engagement through tools for argumentation. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 2008), pp 116–127Chesñevar C, McGinnis J, Modgil S, Rahwan I, Reed C, Simari G, South M, Vreeswijk G, Willmott S (2006) Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl Eng Rev 21(4):293–316Chesñevar CI, Maguitman AG, Gonzàlez MP (2009) Empowering recommendation technologies through argumentation. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 403–422García AJ, Dix J, Simari GR (2009) Argument-based logic programming. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinGolbeck J (2006) Generating predictive movie recommendations from trust in social networks. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on trust management, LNCS, vol 3986, 93–104Gordon T, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896Guha R, Kumar R, Raghavan P, Tomkins A (2004) Propagating trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on, World Wide Web, pp 403–412Heras S, Navarro M, Botti V, Julián V (2009) Applying dialogue games to manage recommendation in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent aystems, ArgMASHeras S, Atkinson K, Botti V, Grasso F, Julián V, McBurney P (2010a) How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA, vol 216, pp 267–274Heras S, Atkinson K, Botti V, Grasso F, Julián V, McBurney P (2010b) Applying argumentation to enhance dialogues in social networks. In: ECAI 2010 workshop on computational models of natural argument, CMNA, pp 10–17Karacapilidis N, Tzagarakis M (2007) Web-based collaboration and decision making support: a multi-disciplinary approach. Web-Based Learn Teach Technol 2(4):12–23Kim D, Benbasat I (2003) Trust-related arguments in internet stores: a framework for evaluation. J Electron Commer Res 4(2):49–64Kim D, Benbasat I (2006) The effects of trust-assuring arguments on consumer trust in internet stores: application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Inf Syst Rese 17(3):286–300Laera L, Tamma V, Euzenat J, Bench-Capon T, Payne T (2006) Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In: Proceedings of the 5th international semantic web conference (ISWC 2006)Lange C, Bojãrs U, Groza T, Breslin J, Handschuh S (2008) Expressing argumentative discussions in social media sites. In: Social data on the web (SDoW2008) workshop at the 7th international semantic web conferenceLinden G, Smith B, York J (2003) Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Comput 7(1):76–80Linden G, Hong J, Stonebraker M, Guzdial M (2009) Recommendation algorithms, online privacy and more. Commun ACM, 52(5)Mika P (2007) Ontologies are us: a unified model of social networks and semantics. J Web Semant 5(1):5–15Montaner M, López B, de la Rosa JL (2002) Opinion-based filtering through trust. In: Cooperative information agents VI, LNCS, vol 2446, pp 127–144Ontañón S, Plaza E (2008) Argumentation-based information exchange in prediction markets. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMASPazzani MJ, Billsus D (2007) Content-based recommendation systems. In: The adaptive web, LNCS, vol 4321, pp 325–341Rahwan I, Zablith F, Reed C (2007) Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artif Intell 171(10–15):897–921Rahwan I, Banihashemi B (2008) Arguments in OWL: a progress report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA), pp 297–310Reed C, Walton D (2007) Argumentation schemes in dialogue. In: Dissensus and the search for common ground, OSSA-07, volume CD-ROM, pp 1–11Sabater J, Sierra C (2002) Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 1, pp 475–482Schafer JB, Konstan JA, Riedl J (2001) E-commerce recommendation applications. Data Min Knowl Discov 5:115–153Schafer JB, Frankowski D, Herlocker J, Sen S (2007) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. In: The adaptive web, LNCS, vol 4321, pp 291–324Schneider J, Groza T, Passant A (2012) A review of argumentation for the aocial semantic web. Semantic web-interoperability, usability, applicability. IOS Press, Washington, DCTempich C, Pinto HS, Sure Y, Staab S (2005) An argumentation ontology for distributed, loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In: Proceedings of the 2nd European semantic web conference, ESWC, pp 241–256Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKTrojahn C, Quaresma P, Vieira R, Isaac A (2009) Comparing argumentation frameworks for composite ontology matching. in: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMASTruthMapping. http://truthmapping.com/Walter FE, Battiston S, Schweitzer F (2007) A model of a trust-based recommendation system on a social network. J Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 16(1):57–74Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, New York, NYWalton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeWells S, Gourlay C, Reed C (2009) Argument blogging. Computational models of natural argument, CMNAWyner A, Schneider J (2012) Arguing from a point of view. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on agreement technologie

Prediction Markets:A literature review 2014

In recent years, Prediction Markets gained growing interest as a forecasting tool among researchers as well as practitioners, which resulted in an increasing number of publications. In order to track the latest development of research, comprising the extent and focus of research, this article provides a comprehensive review and classification of the literature related to the topic of Prediction Markets. Overall, 304 relevant articles, published in the timeframe from 2007 through 2013, were identified and assigned to a herein presented classification scheme, differentiating between descriptive works, articles of theoretical nature, application-oriented studies and articles dealing with the topic of law and policy. The analysis of the research results reveals that more than half of the literature pool deals with the application and actual function tests of Prediction Markets. The results are further compared to two previous works published by Zhao, Wagner and Chen (2008) and Tziralis and Tatsiopoulos (2007a). The article concludes with an extended bibliography section and may therefore serve as a guidance and basis for further research. (250 WORDS

An Ontological-based Knowledge-Representation Formalism for Case-Based Argumentation

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9524-3[EN] In open multi-agent systems, agents can enter or leave the system, interact, form societies, and have dependency relations with each other. In these systems, when agents have to collaborate or coordinate their activities to achieve their objectives, their different interests and preferences can come into conflict. Argumentation is a powerful technique to harmonise these conflicts. However, in many situations the social context of agents determines the way in which agents can argue to reach agreements. In this paper, we advance research in the computational representation of argumentation frameworks by proposing a new ontologicalbased, knowledge-representation formalism for the design of open MAS in which the participating software agents are able to manage and exchange arguments with each other taking into account the agents’ social context. This formalism is the core of a case-based argumentation framework for agent societies. In addition, we present an example of the performance of the formalism in a real domain that manages the requests received by the technicians of a call centre.This work is supported by the Spanish government grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, TIN2011-27652-C03-01, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO II/2013/019].Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti, V.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2014). An Ontological-based Knowledge-Representation Formalism for Case-Based Argumentation. Information Systems Frontiers. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9524-3S120Amgoud, L. (2005). An argumentation-based model for reasoning about coalition structures. In 2nd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, argmas-05(pp. 1–12). Springer.Amgoud, L., Dimopolous, Y., Moraitis, P. (2007). A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In 6th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-07. IFAAMAS.Atkinson, K., & Bench-Capon, T. (2008). Abstract argumentation scheme frameworks. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence: methodology, systems and applications, AIMSA-08, lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 5253, pp. 220–234). Springer.Aulinas, M., Tolchinsky, P., Turon, C., Poch, M., Cortés, U. (2012). Argumentation-based framework for industrial wastewater discharges management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(2), 317–325.Bench-Capon, T., & Atkinson, K. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence, chap. abstract argumentation and values (pp. 45–64). Springer.Bench-Capon, T., & Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 97–143.Bulling, N., Dix, J., Chesñevar, C.I. (2008). Modelling coalitions: ATL + argumentation. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-08 (Vol. 2, pp. 681–688). ACM Press.Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293–316.Diaz-Agudo, B., & Gonzalez-Calero, P.A. (2007). Ontologies: A handbook of principles, concepts and applications in information systems, integrated series in information systems, chap. an ontological approach to develop knowledge intensive cbr systems (Vol. 14, pp. 173–214). Springer.Dung, P.M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and N -person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O., Michel, F. (2004). From agents to organizations: An organizational view of multi-agent systems. In Agent-oriented software engineering VI, LNCS (Vol. 2935, pp. 214–230.) Springer-Verlag.Hadidi, N., Dimopolous, Y., Moraitis, P. (2010). Argumentative alternating offers. In 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-10 (pp. 441–448). IFAAMAS.Heras, S., Atkinson, K., Botti, V., Grasso, F., Julián, V., McBurney, P. (2010). How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-10, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (Vol. 216, pp. 267–274). IOS Press.Heras, S., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2011). On a computational argumentation framework for agent societies. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 123–140). Springer.Heras, S., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2012). Argument-based agreements in agent societies. Neurocomputing, 75(1), 156–162.Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2013). Argue to agree: A case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1), 82–108.Jordán, J., Heras, S., Julián, V. (2011). A customer support application using argumentation in multi-agent systems. In 14th international conference on information fusion (FUSION-11) (pp. 772– 778).Karunatillake, N.C. (2006). Argumentation-based negotiation in a social context. Ph.D. thesis, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK.Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R., Rahwan, I., McBurney, P. (2009). Dialogue games that agents play within a society. Artificial Intelligence, 173(9-10), 935–981.Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104, 1–69.López de Mántaras, R., McSherry, D., Bridge, D., Leake, D., Smyth, B., Craw, S., Faltings, B., Maher, M.L., Cox, M., Forbus, K., Keane, M., Watson, I. (2006). Retrieval, reuse, revision, and retention in CBR. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 215–240.Luck, M., & McBurney, P. (2008). Computing as interaction: Agent and agreement technologies. In IEEE international conference on distributed human-machine systems. IEEE Press.Oliva, E., McBurney, P., Omicini, A. (2008). Co-argumentation artifact for agent societies. In 5th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, Argmas-08 (pp. 31–46). Springer.Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2007). Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In 7th international conference on agents and multi-agent systems, AAMAS-07. ACM Press.Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2009). Argumentation-based information exchange in prediction markets. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems, LNAI (vol. 5384, pp. 181–196). Springer.Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), 261–292.Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1, 93–124.Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. (2005). Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL-05 (pp. 115–124). ACM Press.Sierra, C., Botti, V., Ossowski, S. (2011). Agreement computing. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz 10.1007/s13218-010-0070-y .Soh, L.K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A real-time negotiation model and a multi-agent sensor network implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215–271.Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.Wardeh, M., Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.P. (2008). PISA - pooling information from several agents: Multiplayer argumentation from experience. In Proceedings of the 28th SGAI international conference on artificial intelligence, AI-2008 (pp. 133–146). Springer.Wardeh, M., Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.P. (2009). PADUA: A protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. AI and Law, 17(3), 183–215.Wardeh, M., Coenen, F., Bench-Capon, T. (2010). Arguing in groups. In 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-10 (pp. 475–486). IOS Press.Willmott, S., Vreeswijk, G., Chesñevar, C., South, M., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format for multi-agent systems. In 3rd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMAS-06 (pp. 17–34). Springer.Wyner, A., & Schneider, J. (2012). Arguing from a point of view. In Proceedings of the first international conference on agreement technologies

A Computational Argumentation Framework for Agent Societies

Starting from the idea that the social context of agents determines the way in which agents can argue and reach agreements, this context should have a decisive influence in the computational representation of arguments. In this report, we advance research in the area of computational frameworks for agent argumentation by proposing a new argumentation framework (AF) for the design of open MAS in which the participating software agents are able to manage and exchange arguments between themselves taking into account the agents¿ social context. In order to do this, we have analysed the necessary requirements for this type of framework 1 and taken into account them in the design of our framework. Also, the knowledge resources that the agents can use to manage arguments in this framework are presented in this work. In addition, if heterogeneous agents can interact in the framework, they need a common language to represent arguments and argumentation processes. To cope with this, we have also designed an argumentation ontology to represent arguments and argumentation concepts in our framework.Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2011). A Computational Argumentation Framework for Agent Societies. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/1103

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

Using a Case-Based Reasoning Approach for Trading in Sports Betting Markets

The sports betting market has emerged as one of the most lucrative markets in recent years. Trading in sports betting markets entails predicting odd movements in order to bet on an outcome, whilst also betting on the opposite outcome, at different odds in order to make a profit, regardless of the final result. These markets are mainly composed by humans, which take decisions according to their past experience in these markets. However, human rational reasoning is limited when taking quick decisions, being influenced by emotional factors and offering limited calibration capabilities for estimating probabilities. In this paper, we show how artificial techniques could be applied to this field and demonstrate that they can outperform even the bevahior of high-experienced humans. To achieve this goal, we propose a case-based reasoning model for trading in sports betting markets, which is integrated in an agent to provide it with the capabilities to take trading decisions based on future odd predictions. In order to test the performance of the system, we compare trading decisions taken by the agent with trading decisions taken by human traders when they compete in real sports betting markets.This work has been partially supported by CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 under grant CSD2007-00022, and project TIN2011-27652-C03-01. Juan M. Alberola has received a grant from Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion de Espana (AP2007-00289).Alberola Oltra, JM.; García Fornes, AM. (2013). Using a Case-Based Reasoning Approach for Trading in Sports Betting Markets. Applied Intelligence. 38(3):465-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-012-0381-9S465477383Aamodt A (1990) Knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning and sustained learning. In: Topics in case-based reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 274–288Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning; foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun 7(1):39–59Ahn JJ, Byun HW, Oh KJ, Kim TY (2012) Bayesian forecaster using class-based optimization. Appl Intell 36(3):553–563Alberola JM, Garcia-Fornes A, Espinosa A (2010) Price prediction in sports betting markets. In: Proceedings of the 8th German conference on multiagent system technologies, pp 197–208Arias-Aranda D, Castro JL, Navarro M, Zurita JM (2009) A cbr system for knowing the relationship between flexibility and operations strategy. In: Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on foundations of intelligent systems, ISMIS’09, pp 463–472Ates C (2004) Prediction markets are only human: subadditivity in probability judgments. In: MSC in finance and international businessBerlemann M, Schmidt C (2001) Predictive accuracy of political stock markets—empirical evidence from a European perspective. Technical report 2001-57Betfair (2009) http://www.betfaircorporate.comChen Y, Goel S, Pennock D (2008) Pricing combinatorial markets for tournaments. In: STOC’08: proceedings of the 40th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing. ACM Press, New York, pp 305–314Debnath S, Pennock DM, Giles CL, Lawrence S (2003) Information incorporation in online in-game sports betting markets. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on electronic commerce, EC ’03. ACM Press, New York, pp 258–259. doi: 10.1145/779928.779987Fischoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1977) Knowing with certainty: the appropriateness of extreme confidence. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 3:552–564Forsythe R, Rietz T, Ross T (1999) Wishes, expectations and actions: a survey on price formation in election stock markets. J Econ Behav Organ 39(1):83–110Fortnow L, Kilian J, Pennock DM, Wellman MP (2005) Betting Boolean-style: a framework for trading in securities based on logical formulas. Decis Support Syst 39(1):87–104. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2004.08.010Gayer G (2010) Perception of probabilities in situations of risk: a case based approach. Games Econ Behav 68(1):130–143Guo M, Pennock D (2009) Combinatorial prediction markets for event hierarchies. In: Proc of the 8th AAMAS’09. Int foundation for autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 201–208Huang W, Lai K, Nakamori Y, Wang S (2004) Forecasting foreign exchange rates with artificial neural networks: a review. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 3(1):145–165Hüllermeier E (2007) Case-based approximate reasoning. Theory and decision library, vol 44. Springer, BerlinKim K-J, Ahn H (2012) Simultaneous optimization of artificial neural networks for financial forecasting. Appl Intell 36(4):887–898LeBaron B (1998) Agent based computational finance: suggested readings and early research. J Econ Dyn ControlLiu Y, Yang C, Yang Y, Lin F, Du X, Ito T (2012) Case learning for cbr-based collision avoidance systems. Appl Intell 36(2):308–319Love BC (2008) Behavioural finance and sports betting markets. In: MSC in finance and international businessLuque C, Valls JM, Isasi P (2011) Time series prediction evolving Voronoi regions. Appl Intell 34(1):116–126Mantaras RLD, McSherry D, Bridge D, Leake D, Smyth B, Craw S, Faltings B, Maher M, Lou C, Forbus MCK, Keane M, Aamodt A, Watson I (2005) Retrieval, reuse, revision and retention in case-based reasoning. Knowl Eng Rev 20(3):215–240Moody J (1995) Economic forecasting: challenges and neural network solutions. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on artificial neural networksOntañón S, Plaza E (2009) Argumentation-based information exchange in prediction markets. Argument Multi-Agent Syst 5384:181–196Ontañón S, Plaza E (2011) An argumentation framework for learning, information exchange, and joint-deliberation in multi-agent systems. Multiagent Grid Syst 7:95–108Palmer R, Arthur W, Holland J, Lebaron B, Tayler P (1994) Artificial economic life: a simple model of a stock market. Physica D 75:264–274Pennock D, Debnath S, Glover E, Giles C (2002) Modelling information incorporation in markets, with application to detecting and explaining events. In: Proceedings of the 18th annual conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI-02), San Francisco, CA. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 404–405Pennock DM, Lawrence S, Nielsen FÅ, Giles CL (2001) Extracting collective probabilistic forecasts from web games. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD ’01. ACM Press, New York, pp 174–183. doi: 10.1145/502512.502537Plott CR (2000) Markets as information gathering tools. South Econ J 67(1):2–15Qian B, Rasheed K (2007) Stock market prediction with multiple classifiers. Appl Intell 26(1):25–33Raudys S, Zliobaite I (2006) The multi-agent system for prediction of financial time series. In: ICAISC, vol 4029. Springer, Berlin, pp 653–662Schmidt C, Werwatz A (2002) How accurate do markets predict the outcome of an event? The euro 2000 soccer championship experiment, 2002-09. Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group. http://ideas.repec.org/p/esi/discus/2002-09.htmlShiu SCK, Pal SK (2004) Case-based reasoning: concepts, features and soft computing. Appl Intell 21(3):233–238Wellman MP, Reeves DM, Lochner KM, Vorobeychik Y (2004) Price prediction in a trading agent competition. J Artif Intell Res 21:19–3