Self-adaptation via concurrent multi-action evaluation for unknown context

Context-aware computing has been attracting growing attention in recent years. Generally, there are several ways for a context-aware system to select a course of action for a particular change of context. One way is for the system developers to encompass all possible context changes in the domain knowledge. Other methods include system inferences and adaptive learning whereby the system executes one action and evaluates the outcome and self-adapts/self-learns based on that. However, in situations where a system encounters unknown contexts, the iterative approach would become unfeasible when the size of the action space increases. Providing efficient solutions to this problem has been the main goal of this research project. Based on the developed abstract model, the designed methodology replaces the single action implementation and evaluation by multiple actions implemented and evaluated concurrently. This parallel evaluation of actions speeds up significantly the evolution time taken to select the best action suited to unknown context compared to the iterative approach. The designed and implemented framework efficiently carries out concurrent multi-action evaluation when an unknown context is encountered and finds the best course of action. Two concrete implementations of the framework were carried out demonstrating the usability and adaptability of the framework across multiple domains. The first implementation was in the domain of database performance tuning. The concrete implementation of the framework demonstrated the ability of concurrent multi-action evaluation technique to performance tune a database when performance is regressed for an unknown reason. The second implementation demonstrated the ability of the framework to correctly determine the threshold price to be used in a name-your-own-price channel when an unknown context is encountered. In conclusion the research introduced a new paradigm of a self-adaptation technique for context-aware application. Among the existing body of work, the concurrent multi-action evaluation is classified under the abstract concept of experiment-based self-adaptation techniques

An incremental points-to analysis with CFL-reachability

Abstract. Developing scalable and precise points-to analyses is increasingly important for analysing and optimising object-oriented programs where pointers are used pervasively. An incremental analysis for a program updates the existing analysis information after program changes to avoid reanalysing it from scratch. This can be efficiently deployed in software development environments where code changes are often small and frequent. This paper presents an incremental approach for demand-driven context-sensitive points-to analyses based on Context-Free Language (CFL) reachability. By tracing the CFL-reachable paths traversed in computing points-to sets, we can precisely identify and recompute on demand only the points-to sets affected by the program changes made. Combined with a flexible policy for controlling the granularity of traces, our analysis achieves significant speedups with little space overhead over reanalysis from scratch when evaluated with a null dereferencing client using 14 Java benchmarks.

The Design and Implementation of Low-Latency Prediction Serving Systems

Machine learning is being deployed in a growing number of applications which demand real- time, accurate, and cost-efficient predictions under heavy query load. These applications employ a variety of machine learning frameworks and models, often composing several models within the same application. However, most machine learning frameworks and systems are optimized for model training and not deployment.In this thesis, I discuss three prediction serving systems designed to meet the needs of modern interactive machine learning applications. The key idea in this work is to utilize a decoupled, layered design that interposes systems on top of training frameworks to build low-latency, scalable serving systems. Velox introduced this decoupled architecture to enable fast online learning and model personalization in response to feedback. Clipper generalized this system architecture to be framework-agnostic and introduced a set of optimizations to reduce and bound prediction latency and improve prediction throughput, accuracy, and robustness without modifying the underlying machine learning frameworks. And InferLine provisions and manages the individual stages of prediction pipelines to minimize cost while meeting end-to-end tail latency constraints

A semantic web service-based framework for generic personalization and user modeling

[no abstract

Ensuring compliance with data privacy and usage policies in online services

Online services collect and process a variety of sensitive personal data that is subject to complex privacy and usage policies. Complying with the policies is critical, often legally binding for service providers, but it is challenging as applications are prone to many disclosure threats. We present two compliance systems, Qapla and Pacer, that ensure efficient policy compliance in the face of direct and side-channel disclosures, respectively. Qapla prevents direct disclosures in database-backed applications (e.g., personnel management systems), which are subject to complex access control, data linking, and aggregation policies. Conventional methods inline policy checks with application code. Qapla instead specifies policies directly on the database and enforces them in a database adapter, thus separating compliance from the application code. Pacer prevents network side-channel leaks in cloud applications. A tenant’s secrets may leak via its network traffic shape, which can be observed at shared network links (e.g., network cards, switches). Pacer implements a cloaked tunnel abstraction, which hides secret-dependent variation in tenant’s traffic shape, but allows variations based on non-secret information, enabling secure and efficient use of network resources in the cloud. Both systems require modest development efforts, and incur moderate performance overheads, thus demonstrating their usability.Onlinedienste sammeln und verarbeiten eine Vielzahl sensibler persönlicher Daten, die komplexen Datenschutzrichtlinien unterliegen. Die Einhaltung dieser Richtlinien ist häufig rechtlich bindend für Dienstanbieter und gleichzeitig eine Herausforderung, da Fehler in Anwendungsprogrammen zu einer unabsichtlichen Offenlegung führen können. Wir präsentieren zwei Compliance-Systeme, Qapla und Pacer, die Richtlinien effizient einhalten und gegen direkte und indirekte Offenlegungen durch Seitenkanäle schützen. Qapla verhindert direkte Offenlegungen in datenbankgestützten Anwendungen. Herkömmliche Methoden binden Richtlinienprüfungen in Anwendungscode ein. Stattdessen gibt Qapla Richtlinien direkt in der Datenbank an und setzt sie in einem Datenbankadapter durch. Die Konformität ist somit vom Anwendungscode getrennt. Pacer verhindert Netzwerkseitenkanaloffenlegungen in Cloud-Anwendungen. Geheimnisse eines Nutzers können über die Form des Netzwerkverkehr offengelegt werden, die bei gemeinsam genutzten Netzwerkelementen (z. B. Netzwerkkarten, Switches) beobachtet werden kann. Pacer implementiert eine Tunnelabstraktion, die Geheimnisse im Netzwerkverkehr des Nutzers verbirgt, jedoch Variationen basier- end auf nicht geheimen Informationen zulässt und eine sichere und effiziente Nutzung der Netzwerkressourcen in der Cloud ermöglicht. Beide Systeme erfordern geringen Entwicklungsaufwand und verursachen einen moderaten Leistungsaufwand, wodurch ihre Nützlichkeit demonstriert wird

Causal Inference and Data-Fusion in Econometrics

Learning about cause and effect is arguably the main goal in applied econometrics. In practice, the validity of these causal inferences is contingent on a number of critical assumptions regarding the type of data that has been collected and the substantive knowledge that is available. For instance, unobserved confounding factors threaten the internal validity of estimates, data availability is often limited to non-random, selection-biased samples, causal effects need to be learned from surrogate experiments with imperfect compliance, and causal knowledge has to be extrapolated across structurally heterogeneous populations. A powerful causal inference framework is required to tackle these challenges, which plague most data analysis to varying degrees. Building on the structural approach to causality introduced by Haavelmo (1943) and the graph-theoretic framework proposed by Pearl (1995), the artificial intelligence (AI) literature has developed a wide array of techniques for causal learning that allow to leverage information from various imperfect, heterogeneous, and biased data sources (Bareinboim and Pearl, 2016). In this paper, we discuss recent advances in this literature that have the potential to contribute to econometric methodology along three dimensions. First, they provide a unified and comprehensive framework for causal inference, in which the aforementioned problems can be addressed in full generality. Second, due to their origin in AI, they come together with sound, efficient, and complete algorithmic criteria for automatization of the corresponding identification task. And third, because of the nonparametric description of structural models that graph-theoretic approaches build on, they combine the strengths of both structural econometrics as well as the potential outcomes framework, and thus offer a perfect middle ground between these two competing literature streams.Comment: Abstract change

Quality of Context in Context-Aware Systems

Context-aware Systems (CASs) are becoming increasingly popular and can be found in the areas of wearable computing, mobile computing, robotics, adaptive and intelligent user interfaces. Sensors are the corner stone of context capturing however, sensed context data are commonly prone to imperfection due to the technical limitations of sensors, their availability, dysfunction, and highly dynamic nature of environment. Consequently, sensed context data might be imprecise, erroneous, conflicting, or simply missing. To limit the impact of context imperfection on the behavior of a context-aware system, a notion of Quality of Context (QoC) is used to measure quality of any information that is used as context information. Adaptation is performed only if the context data used in the decision-making has an appropriate quality level. This paper reports an analytical review for state of the art quality of context in context-aware systems and points to future research directions

Towards computationally efficient neural networks with adaptive and dynamic computations

Ces dernières années, l'intelligence artificielle a été considérablement avancée et l'apprentissage en profondeur, où des réseaux de neurones profonds sont utilisés pour tenter d'imiter vaguement le cerveau humain, y a contribué de manière significative. Les réseaux de neurones profonds sont désormais capables d'obtenir un grand succès sur la base d'une grande quantité de données et de ressources de calcul suffisantes. Malgré leur succès, leur capacité à s'adapter rapidement à de nouveaux concepts, tâches et environnements est assez limitée voire inexistante. Dans cette thèse, nous nous intéressons à la façon dont les réseaux de neurones profonds peuvent s'adapter à des circonstances en constante évolution ou totalement nouvelles, de la même manière que l'intelligence humaine, et introduisons en outre des modules architecturaux adaptatifs et dynamiques ou des cadres de méta-apprentissage pour que cela se produise de manière efficace sur le plan informatique. Cette thèse consiste en une série d'études proposant des méthodes pour utiliser des calculs adaptatifs et dynamiques pour aborder les problèmes d'adaptation qui sont étudiés sous différentes perspectives telles que les adaptations au niveau de la tâche, au niveau temporel et au niveau du contexte. Dans le premier article, nous nous concentrons sur l'adaptation rapide des tâches basée sur un cadre de méta-apprentissage. Plus précisément, nous étudions l'incertitude du modèle induite par l'adaptation rapide à une nouvelle tâche avec quelques exemples. Ce problème est atténué en combinant un méta-apprentissage efficace basé sur des gradients avec une inférence variationnelle non paramétrique dans un cadre probabiliste fondé sur des principes. C'est une étape importante vers un méta-apprentissage robuste que nous développons une méthode d'apprentissage bayésienne à quelques exemples pour éviter le surapprentissage au niveau des tâches. Dans le deuxième article, nous essayons d'améliorer les performances de la prédiction de la séquence (c'est-à-dire du futur) en introduisant une prédiction du futur sauteur basée sur la taille du pas adaptatif. C'est une capacité critique pour un agent intelligent d'explorer un environnement qui permet un apprentissage efficace avec une imagination sauteur futur. Nous rendons cela possible en introduisant le modèle hiérarchique d'espace d'état récurrent (HRSSM) qui peut découvrir la structure temporelle latente (par exemple, les sous-séquences) tout en modélisant ses transitions d'état stochastiques de manière hiérarchique. Enfin, dans le dernier article, nous étudions un cadre qui peut capturer le contexte global dans les données d'image de manière adaptative et traiter davantage les données en fonction de ces informations. Nous implémentons ce cadre en extrayant des concepts visuels de haut niveau à travers des modules d'attention et en utilisant un raisonnement basé sur des graphes pour en saisir le contexte global. De plus, des transformations au niveau des caractéristiques sont utilisées pour propager le contexte global à tous les descripteurs locaux de manière adaptative.Over the past few years, artificial intelligence has been greatly advanced, and deep learning, where deep neural networks are used to attempt to loosely emulate the human brain, has significantly contributed to it. Deep neural networks are now able to achieve great success based on a large amount of data and sufficient computational resources. Despite their success, their ability to quickly adapt to new concepts, tasks, and environments is quite limited or even non-existent. In this thesis, we are interested in how deep neural networks can become adaptive to continually changing or totally new circumstances, similarly to human intelligence, and further introduce adaptive and dynamic architectural modules or meta-learning frameworks to make it happen in computationally efficient ways. This thesis consists of a series of studies proposing methods to utilize adaptive and dynamic computations to tackle adaptation problems that are investigated from different perspectives such as task-level, temporal-level, and context-level adaptations. In the first article, we focus on task-level fast adaptation based on a meta-learning framework. More specifically, we investigate the inherent model uncertainty that is induced from quickly adapting to a new task with a few examples. This problem is alleviated by combining the efficient gradient-based meta-learning with nonparametric variational inference in a principled probabilistic framework. It is an important step towards robust meta-learning that we develop a Bayesian few-shot learning method to prevent task-level overfitting. In the second article, we attempt to improve the performance of sequence (i.e. future) prediction by introducing a jumpy future prediction that is based on the adaptive step size. It is a critical ability for an intelligent agent to explore an environment that enables efficient option-learning and jumpy future imagination. We make this possible by introducing the Hierarchical Recurrent State Space Model (HRSSM) that can discover the latent temporal structure (e.g. subsequences) while also modeling its stochastic state transitions hierarchically. Finally, in the last article, we investigate a framework that can capture the global context in image data in an adaptive way and further process the data based on that information. We implement this framework by extracting high-level visual concepts through attention modules and using graph-based reasoning to capture the global context from them. In addition, feature-wise transformations are used to propagate the global context to all local descriptors in an adaptive way

Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS

[EN] Nowadays, Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are broadening their applications to open environments, where heterogeneous agents could enter into the system, form agents’ organizations and interact. The high dynamism of open MAS gives rise to potential conflicts between agents and thus, to a need for a mechanism to reach agreements. Argumentation is a natural way of harmonizing conflicts of opinion that has been applied to many disciplines, such as Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) and MAS. Some approaches that apply CBR to manage argumentation in MAS have been proposed in the literature. These improve agents’ argumentation skills by allowing them to reason and learn from experiences. In this paper, we have reviewed these approaches and identified the current contributions of the CBR methodology in this area. As a result of this work, we have proposed several open issues that must be taken into consideration to develop a CBR framework that provides the agents of an open MAS with arguing and learning capabilities.This work was partially supported by CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 under grant CSD2007-00022 and by the Spanish government and FEDER funds under TIN2006-14630-C0301 project.Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2009). Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS. Knowledge Engineering Review. 24(4):327-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888909990178S327352244Willmott 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 Proceedings of the AAMAS International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 17–34.Sycara, K. P. (1990). Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision, 28(3), 203-242. doi:10.1007/bf00162699Ontañón S. , Plaza E. 2006. Arguments and counterexamples in case-based joint deliberation. In AAMAS-06 Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 36–53.Sadri F. , Toni F. , Torroni P. 2001. Dialogues for negotiation: agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, ATAL-01, Intelligent Agents VIII 2333, 405–421. Springer.Fox J. , Parsons S. 1998. Arguing about beliefs and actions. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1455, 266–302. 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(2), 321-357. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-xAulinas M. , Tolchinsky P. , Turon C. , Poch M. , Cortés U. 2007. Is my spill environmentally safe? Towards an integrated management of wastewater in a river basin using agents that can argue. In 7th International IWA Symposium on Systems Analysis and Integrated Assessment in Water Management. Washington DC, USA.Amgoud L. 2003. A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2711, 552–563. Springer.Armengol E. , Plaza E. 2001. Lazy induction of descriptions for relational case-based learning. In European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML-01, 13–24.Sørmo, F., Cassens, J., & Aamodt, A. (2005). Explanation in Case-Based Reasoning–Perspectives and Goals. Artificial Intelligence Review, 24(2), 109-143. doi:10.1007/s10462-005-4607-7RAHWAN, I., RAMCHURN, S. D., JENNINGS, N. R., McBURNEY, P., PARSONS, S., & SONENBERG, L. (2003). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343-375. doi:10.1017/s0269888904000098Brüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2001. Improving the representation of legal case texts with information extraction methods. In 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-01, 42–51.Parsons, S. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), 261-292. doi:10.1093/logcom/8.3.261Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & Mcburney, P. (2005). A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 153-171. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-1166-xBrüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2003. Predicting the outcome of case-based legal arguments. In 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-03, 233–242.Modgil S. , Tolchinsky P. , Cortés U. 2005. Towards formalising agent argumentation over the viability of human organs for transplantation. In 4th Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, MICAI-05, 928–938.Tolchinsky P. , Atkinson K. , McBurney P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. 2007. Agents deliberating over action proposals using the ProCLAIM model. In 5th International Central and Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, CEEMAS-07, 32–41.Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(2/4), 231-287. doi:10.1023/a:1008278309945Gordon T. F. , Karacapilidis N. 1997. The Zeno argumentation framework. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, ACM Press, 10–18.Tolchinsky P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. 2006a. Argument schemes and critical questions for heterogeneous agents to argue over the viability of a human organ. In AAAI Spring Symposium Series; Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare, 377–384.Aleven V. , Ashley K. D. 1997. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In 8th World Conference of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Society, 87–94.Rahwan, I. (2005). Guest Editorial: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 115-125. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-3079-0RISSLAND, E. L., ASHLEY, K. D., & BRANTING, L. K. (2005). Case-based reasoning and law. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 293-298. doi:10.1017/s0269888906000701Tolchinsky, P., Cortes, U., Modgil, S., Caballero, F., & Lopez-Navidad, A. (2006). Increasing Human-Organ Transplant Availability: Argumentation-Based Agent Deliberation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(6), 30-37. doi:10.1109/mis.2006.116McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S. (2006). The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95-132. doi:10.1002/int.20191Rissland, E. L., Ashley, K. D., & Loui, R. P. (2003). AI and Law: A fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 1-15. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00122-xSoh, 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. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-0539-5Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C. I., & Simari, G. R. (2005). Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 127-151. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-1354-8Tolchinsky P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. , Sànchez-Marrè M. 2006b. CBR and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA-06, 144, 71–82. IOS Press.Ossowski S. , Julian V. , Bajo J. , Billhardt H. , Botti V. , Corchado J. M. 2007. Open issues in open MAS: an abstract architecture proposal. In Conferencia de la Asociacion Española para la Inteligencia Artificial, CAEPIA-07, 2, 151–160.Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259-277. doi:10.1016/s0306-4379(01)00020-5Aamodt A. 2004. Knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning in Creek. In 7th European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning ECCBR-04, 1–15.Jakobovits H. , Vermeir D. 1999. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-99, ACM Press, 53–62.Díaz-Agudo, B., & González-Calero, P. A. (s. f.). An Ontological Approach to Develop Knowledge Intensive CBR Systems. Ontologies, 173-213. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-37022-4_7Reed C. , Walton D. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-04, 173–188.Sycara K. 1989. Argumentation: planning other agents’ plans. In 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1, 517–523. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 619-641. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1-2), 81-132. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4Amgoud L. , Kaci S. 2004. On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In 1st International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3366, 192–207. Springer.CHESÑEVAR, C., MCGINNIS, MODGIL, S., RAHWAN, I., REED, C., SIMARI, G., … WILLMOTT, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293-316. doi:10.1017/s0269888906001044Rahwan I. , Amgoud L. 2006. An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-06, ACM Press, 347–354.Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730Soh L.-K. , Tsatsoulis C. 2001b. Reflective negotiating agents for real-time multisensor target tracking. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-01, 1121–1127.Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. doi:10.1515/9783110846089Rissland E. L. , Skalak D. B. , Friedman M. T. 1993. Bankxx: a program to generate argument through case-based search. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-93, 117–124.Sycara K. 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods, PhD thesis, School of Information and Computer Science. Georgia Institute of Technology.Ontañón S. , Plaza E. 2007. Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-07, 971–978.Rissland, E. L., & Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 839-887. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-wDaniels J. J. , Rissland E. L. 1997. Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. In 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, 39–47.Brüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2005. Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts. In 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-05, 65–74.Simari G. R. , García A. J. , Capobianco M. 2004. Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 377–384.Soh L.-K. , Tsatsoulis C. 2001a. Agent-based argumentative negotiations with case-based reasoning. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, 16–25.Ashley, K. D. (1991). Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 753-796. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-uHulstijn J. , van der Torre L. 2004, Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Argument, Dialogue and Decision. International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 212–218.Karacapilidis N. , Trousse B. , Papadias D. 1997. Using case-based reasoning for argumentation with multiple viewpoints. In 2nd International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR-97, 541–552.Branting, L. K. (1991). Building explanations from rules and structured cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 797-837. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90012-