Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems

In the last few years, information system technologies have focused on solving challenges in order to develop distributed applications. Distributed systems can be viewed as collections of service-provider and ser vice-consumer components interlinked by dynamically defined workflows (Luck and McBurney 2008).Alberola Oltra, JM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Such Aparicio, JM. (2014). Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems. Information Systems Frontiers. 16:163-167. doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9493-6S16316716Alberola, J. M., Búrdalo, L., Julián, V., Terrasa, A., & García-Fornes, A. (2014). An adaptive framework for monitoring agent organizations. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9478-x .Alfonso, B., Botti, V., Garrido, A., & Giret, A. (2014). A MAS-based infrastructure for negotiation and its application to a water-right market. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9443-8 .Andrighetto, G., Castelfranchi, C., Mayor, E., McBreen, J., López-Sánchez, M., & Parsons, S. (2013). (Social) norm dynamics. In G. Andrighetto, G. Governatori, P. Noriega, & L. W. van der Torre (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems (pp. 135–170). Dagstuhl: Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Gerding, E. H., Hindriks, K., Ito, T., Jennings, N. R., et al. (2013). Evaluating practical negotiating agents: results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence, 198, 73–103.Boissier, O., Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., Ricci, A., & Santi, A. (2013). Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Science of Computer Programming, 78(6), 747–761.Campos, J., Esteva, M., López-Sánchez, M., Morales, J., & Salamó, M. (2011). Organisational adaptation of multi-agent systems in a peer-to-peer scenario. Computing, 91(2), 169–215.Carrera, A., Iglesias, C. A., & Garijo, M. (2014). Beast methodology: an agile testing methodology for multi-agent systems based on behaviour driven development. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9438-5 .Criado, N., Such, J. M., & Botti, V. (2014). Norm reasoning services. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9444-7 .Del Val, E., Rebollo, M., & Botti, V. (2014). Enhancing decentralized service discovery in open service-oriented multi-agent systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(1), 1–30.Denti, E., Omicini, A., & Ricci, A. (2002). Coordination tools for MAS development and deployment. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 16(9–10), 721–752.Dignum, V., & Dignum, F. (2012). A logic of agent organizations. Logic Journal of IGPL, 20(1), 283–316.Ferber, J., & Gutknecht, O. (1998). A meta-model for the analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In Multi agent systems. Proceedings. International Conference on (pp. 128–135). IEEE.Fogués, R. L., Such, J. M., Espinosa, A., & Garcia-Fornes, A. (2014). BFF: a tool for eliciting tie strength and user communities in social networking services. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9453-6 .Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Evaluating software engineering techniques for developing complex systems with multiagent approaches. Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 494–506.Garcia-Fornes, A., Hübner, J., Omicini, A., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., & Botti, V. (2011). Infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems for the new generation of distributed systems. Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence, 24(7), 1095–1097.Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., & Wooldridge, M. (2001). Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 199–215.Jung, Y., Kim, M., Masoumzadeh, A., & Joshi, J. B. (2012). A survey of security issue in multi-agent systems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 37(3), 239–260.Kota, R., Gibbins, N., & Jennings, N. R. (2012). Decentralized approaches for self-adaptation in agent organizations. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS), 7(1), 1.Kraus, S. (1997). Negotiation and cooperation in multi-agent environments. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1), 79–97.Lin, Y. I., Chou, Y. W., Shiau, J. Y., & Chu, C. H. (2013). Multi-agent negotiation based on price schedules algorithm for distributed collaborative design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24(3), 545–557.Luck, M., & McBurney, P. (2008). Computing as interaction: agent and agreement technologies.Luck, M., McBurney, P., Shehory, O., & Willmott, S. (2005). Agent technology: Computing as interaction (A roadmap for agent based computing). AgentLink.Ossowski, S., & Menezes, R. (2006). On coordination and its significance to distributed and multiagent systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 18(4), 359–370.Ossowski, S., Sierra, C., & Botti. (2013). Agreement technologies: A computing perspective. In Agreement Technologies (pp. 3–16). Springer Netherlands.Pinyol, I., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2013). Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 40(1), 1–25.Ricci, A., Piunti, M., & Viroli, M. (2011). Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 23(2), 158–192.Sierra, C., & Debenham, J. (2006). Trust and honour in information-based agency. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems, (p. 1225–1232). New York: ACM.Sierra, C., Botti, V., & Ossowski, S. (2011). Agreement computing. KI-Knstliche Intelligenz, 25(1), 57–61.Vasconcelos, W., García-Camino, A., Gaertner, D., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., & Noriega, P. (2012). Distributed norm management for multi-agent systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5990–5999.Wooldridge, M. (2002). An introduction to multiagent systems. New York: Wiley.Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2), 115–152

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

Agents, idols, and icons

Since the early 1960s, Artificial Intelligence has cherished the ambition to design an artificial cognitive machine able to reproduce intimate aspects of human behaviour. Distributed Artificial Intelligence and its most recent avatars—Multi- Agent Systems—have developed the concept towards social interactions and societal dynamics, attracting the attention of sociologists and ethnographers who found new ways to elaborate or validate their theories. But populations of cognitive agents aren’t the real thing, despite the efforts of their designers. Furthermore, one must cautiously examine the rationale behind these often incredibly complex arrangements of algorithms, in order to assess the usefulness of such exercises. As a matter of fact, Artificial Intelligence relies on a very positivist, and sometimes reductionist, view of human behaviour. For centuries, from Bacon to Pierce, philosophy of mind has provided meaningful insights that challenge some of these views. More recently, post-normal approaches have even taken a more dramatic stand—some sort of paradigm shift—where direct knowledge elicitation and processing override the traditional hardwiring of formal logic-based algorithm within computer agents. Keywords: Agent-Based Modelling, Artificial Intelligence, Icon, Idol, Philosophy of Mind, Cognition

Verifying and Synthesising Multi-Agent Systems against One-Goal Strategy Logic Specifications

© Copyright 2015, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaa1.org). All rights reserved.Strategy Logic (SL) has recently come to the fore as a useful specification language to reason about multi-agent systems. Its one-goal fragment, or SL[1g], is of particular interest as it strictly subsumes widely used logics such as ATL∗, while maintaining attractive complexity features. In this paper we put forward an automata-based methodology for verifying and synthesising multi-agent systems against specifications given in SL[Ig], We show that the algorithm is sound and optimal from a computational point of view. A key feature of the approach is that all data structures and operations on them can be performed on BDDs. We report on a BDD-based model checker implementing the algorithm and evaluate its performance on the fair process scheduler synthesis

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-

Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 10302 Learning paradigms in dynamic environments

Abstract We discuss the purpose of neural-symbolic integration including its principles, mechanisms and applications. We outline a cognitive computational model for neural-symbolic integration, position the model in the broader context of multi-agent systems, machine learning and automated reasoning, and list some of the challenges for the area of neural-symbolic computation to achieve the promise of effective integration of robust learning and expressive reasoning under uncertainty. Overview The study of human behaviour is an important part of computer science, artificial intelligence (AI), neural computation, cognitive science, philosophy, psychology and other areas. Among the most prominent tools in the modelling of behaviour are computational-logic systems (classical logic, nonmonotonic logic, modal and temporal logic) and connectionist models of cognition (feedforward and recurrent networks, symmetric and deep networks, self-organising networks). Recent studies in cognitive science, artificial intelligence and evolutionary psychology have produced a number of cognitive models of reasoning, learning and language that are underpinned by computatio

Artificial Intelligence Technology and Ecological Transition -Analysis and Criticism-

Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to an application capable of processing tasks which are currently performed satisfactorily by human beings insofar as they involve high-level mental processes such as perceptual learning or the organization of memory (Marvin Lee Minsky, 1956). Until now, research in this field has shown a difficulty in validating and certifying artificial intelligence systems at the service of decarbonization, ecological and energy transition objectives. In this context, this article focuses on an effective analysis of 05 of today’s most popular AI technologies in the field of environment, Artificial Neural Networks, fuzzy logic, Case-based reasoning, the multi-agent system and the process of natural language. The results show that our analysis can be beneficial for developers to select the appropriate technology for a reliable and successful implementation of artificial intelligence

Challenges for adaptation in agent societies

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOIAdaptation in multiagent systems societies provides a paradigm for allowing these societies to change dynamically in order to satisfy the current requirements of the system. This support is especially required for the next generation of systems that focus on open, dynamic, and adaptive applications. In this paper, we analyze the current state of the art regarding approaches that tackle the adaptation issue in these agent societies. We survey the most relevant works up to now in order to highlight the most remarkable features according to what they support and how this support is provided. In order to compare these approaches, we also identify different characteristics of the adaptation process that are grouped in different phases. Finally, we discuss some of the most important considerations about the analyzed approaches, and we provide some interesting guidelines as open issues that should be required in future developments.This work has been partially supported by CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 under grant CSD2007-00022, the European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research IC0801 AT, and projects TIN2009-13839-C03-01 and TIN2011-27652-C03-01.Alberola Oltra, JM.; Julian Inglada, VJ.; García-Fornes, A. (2014). Challenges for adaptation in agent societies. Knowledge and Information Systems. 38(1):1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0565-yS134381Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning; foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun 7(1):39–59Abdallah S, Lesser V (2007) Multiagent reinforcement learning and self-organization in a network of agents. In: Proceedings of the sixth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, pp 172–179Abdu H, Lutfiyya H, Bauer MA (1999) A model for adaptive monitoring configurations. In: Proceedings of the VI IFIP/IEEE IM conference on network management, pp 371–384Alberola JM, Julian V, Garcia-Fornes A (2011) A cost-based transition approach for multiagent systems reorganization. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on aut. agents and MAS (AAMAS11), pp 1221–1222Alberola JM, Julian V, Garcia-Fornes A (2012) Multi-dimensional transition deliberation for organization adaptation in multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on aut. agents and MAS (AAMAS12) (in press)Argente E, Julian V, Botti V (2006) Multi-agent system development based on organizations. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 160(3):55–71Argente E, Botti V, Carrascosa C, Giret A, Julian V, Rebollo M (2011) An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: the Thomas approach. Knowl Inf Syst 29(2):379–403Ashford SJ, Taylor MS (1990) Adaptation to work transitions. An integrative approach. Res Pers Hum Resour Manag 8:1–39Ashford SJ, Blatt R, Walle DV (2003) Reflections on the looking glass: a review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. J Manag 29(6):773–799Astley WG, Van de Ven AH (1983) Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Adm Sci Q 28(2):245–273Bond AH, Gasser L (1988) A survey of distributed artificial intelligence readings in distributed artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, Los AltosBou E, López-Sánchez M, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA (2006) Adaptation of autonomic electronic institutions through norms and institutional agents In: Engineering societies in the agents world. Number LNAI 445, Springer, Dublin, pp 300–319Bou E, López-Sánchez M, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA (2007) Towards self-configuration in autonomic electronic institutions. In: COIN 2006 workshops. Number LNAI 4386, pp 220–235Bou E, López-Sánchez M, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA (2008) Using case-based reasoning in autonomic electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems III, pp 125–138Brett JM, Feldman DC, Weingart LR (1990) Feedback-seeking behavior of new hires and job changers. J Manag 16:737–749Bulka B, Gaston ME, desJardins M (2007) Local strategy learning in networked multi-agent team formation. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 15(1):29–45Campos J, López-Sánchez M, Esteva M (2009) Assistance layer, a step forward in multi-agent systems. In: Coordination support international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 1301–1302Campos J, Esteva M, López-Sánchez M, Morales J, Salamó M (2011) Organisational adaptation of multi-agent systems in a peer-to-peer scenario. Computing 91(2):169–215Carley KM, and Gasser L (1999) Computational organization theory. Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 299–330Carvalho G, Almeida H, Gatti M, Vinicius G, Paes R, Perkusich, A, Lucena C (2006) Dynamic law evolution in governance mechanisms for open multi-agent systems. In: Second workshop on software engineering for agent-oriented systemsCernuzzi L, Zambonelli F (2011) Adaptive organizational changes in agent-oriented methodologies. Knowl Eng Rev 26(2):175–190Cheng BH, Lemos R, Giese H, Inverardi P, Magee J (2009) Software engineering for self-adaptive systems: a research roadmap, pp 1–26Corkill DD, Lesser VR (1983) The use of meta-level control for coordination in a distributed problem solving networks. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 748–756Corkill DD, Lander SE (1998) Diversity in agent organizations. Object Mag 8(4):41–47de Paz JF, Bajo J, González A, Rodríguez S, Corchado JM (2012) Combining case-based reasoning systems and support vector regression to evaluate the atmosphere-ocean interaction. Knowl Inf Syst 30(1):155–177DeLoach SA, Matson E (2004) An organizational model for designing adaptive multiagent systems. In: The AAAI-04 workshop on agent organizations: theory and practice (AOTP), pp 66–73DeLoach SA, Oyeman W, Matson E (2008) A capabilities-based model for adaptive organizations. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 16:13–56Dignum V, Dignum F (2001) Modelling agent societies: co-ordination frameworks and institutions progress in artificial intelligence. LNAI 2258, pp 191–204Dignum V (2004) A model for organizational interaction: based on agents, founded in logic. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht. SIKS dissertation series 2004-1Dignum V, Dignum F, Sonenberg L (2004) Towards dynamic reorganization of agent societies. In: Proceedings of the workshop on coordination in emergent agent societies, pp 22–27Dignum V, Dignum F (2006) Exploring congruence between organizational structure and task performance: a simulation approach coordination, organization, institutions and norms in agent systems I. In: Proceedings of the ANIREM ’05/OOOP ’05, pp 213–230Dignum V, Dignum F (2007) A logic for agent organizations. In: Proceedings of the multi-agent logics, languages, and organisations federated workshops (MALLOW ’007), formal approaches to multi-agent systems (FAMAS ’007) workshopFox MS (1981) Formalizing virtual organizations. IEEE Transact Syst Man Cybern 11(1):70–80Gaston ME, desJardins M (2005) Agent-organized networks for dynamic team formation. In: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 230–237Gaston ME, desJardins M (2008) The effect of network structure on dynamic team formation in multi-agent systems. Comput Intell 24(2):122–157Norbert G, Philippe M (1997) The reorganization of societies of autonomous agents. In: MAAMAW-97. Springer, London, pp 98–111Goldman CV, Rosenschein JS (1997) Evolving organizations of agents American association for artificial intelligence. In: Multiagent learning workshop at AAAI97Greve HR (1998) Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Adm Sci Quart 43(1):58–86Guessoum Z, Ziane M, Faci N (2004) Monitoring and organizational-level adaptation of multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS ’04, pp 514–521Hoogendoorn M, Treur J (2006) An adaptive multi-agent organization model based on dynamic role allocation. In: Proceedings of the IAT ’06, pp 474–481Horling B, Benyo B, Lesser V (1999) Using self-diagnosis to adapt organizational structures. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents, pp 529–536Horling B, Lesser V (2005) A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. Knowl Eng Rev 19(4): 281–316Hrebiniak LG, Joyce WF (1985) Organizational adaptation: strategic choice and environmental determinism. Adm Sci Quart 30(3):336–349Hübner JF, Sichman JS, Boissier O (2002) MOISE+: towards a structural, functional, and deontic model for MAS organization. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 501–502Hübner JF, Sichman JS, Boissier O (2004) Using the MOISE+ for a cooperative framework of MAS reorganisation. In: Proceedings of the 17th Brazilian symposium on artificial intelligence (SBIA ’04), vol 3171, pp 506–515Hübner JF, Boissier O, Sichman JS (2005) Specifying E-alliance contract dynamics through the MOISE + reorganisation process Anais do V Encontro Nacional de Inteligde Inteligncia Artificial (ENIA 2005)Jennings NR (2001) An agent-based approach for building complex software systems. Commun ACM 44(4):35–41Kamboj S, Decker KS (2006) Organizational self-design in semi-dynamic environments In: 2007 IJCAI workshop on agent organizations: models and simulations (AOMS@IJCAI), pp 335–337Katz D, Kahn RL (1966) The social psychology of organizations. Wiley, New YorkKelly D, Amburgey TL (1991) Organizational inertia and momentum: a dynamic model of strategic change. Acad Manag J 34(3):591–612Kephart J, Chess DM (2003) The vision of autonomic computing. Computer 36(1):41–50Kim DH (1993) The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Manag Rev 35(1):37–50Kota R, Gibbins N, Jennings NR (2009a) Decentralised structural adaptation in agent organisations organized adaptation in multi-agent systems, pp 54–71Kota R, Gibbins N, Jennings NR (2009b) Self-organising agent organisations. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2009)Kota R, Gibbins N, Jennings NR (2012) Decentralised approaches for self-adaptation in agent organisations. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst 7(1):1–28Kotter J, Schlesinger L (1979) Choosing strategies for change. Harv Bus Rev 106–1145Lesser VR (1998) Reflections on the nature of multi-agent coordination and its implications for an agent architecture. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 89–111Levitt B, March JG (1988) Organizational learning. Annu Rev Sociol 14:319–340Luck M, McBurney P, Shehory O, Willmott S (2005) Agent technology: computing as interaction (a roadmap for agent based computing)Mathieu P, Routier JC, Secq Y (2002a) Dynamic organization of multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1, pp 451–452Mathieu P, Routier JC, Secq Y (2002b) Principles for dynamic multi-agent organizations. In: Proceedings of the 5th Pacific rim international workshop on multi agents: intelligent agents and multi-agent systems, pp 109–122Matson E, DeLoach S (2003) Using dynamic capability evaluation to organize a team of cooperative, autonomous robots. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on artificial intelligence (IC-AI ’03), Las Vegas, pp 23–26Matson E, DeLoach S (2004) Enabling intra-robotic capabilities adaptation using an organization-based multiagent system. ICRA, pp 2135–2140Matson E, DeLoach S (2005) Formal transition in agent organizations. In: IEEE international conference on knowledge intensive multiagent systems (KIMAS ’05)Matson E, Bhatnagar R (2006) Properties of capability based agent organization transition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology IAT ’06, pp 59–65Morales J, López-Sánchez M, Esteva, M (2011) Using experience to generate new regulations. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-11), pp 307–312Muhlestein D, Lim S (2011) Online learning with social computing based interest sharing. Knowl Inf Syst 26(1):31–58Nair R, Tambe M, Marsella S (2003) Role allocation and reallocation in multiagent teams: towards a practical analysis. In: Proceedings of the second AAMAS ’03, pp 552–559Orlikowski WJ (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Inf Syst Res 7(1):63–92Panait L, Luke S (2005) Cooperative multi-agent learning: the state of the art. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 11:387–434Ringold PL, Alegria J, Czaplewski RL, Mulder BS, Tolle T, Burnett K (1996) Adaptive monitoring design for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):745–747Routier J, Mathieu P, Secq Y (2001) Dynamic skill learning: a support to agent evolution. In: Proceedings of the artificial intelligence and the simulation of behaviour symposium on adaptive agents and multi-agent systems (AISB ’01), pp 25–32Scott RW (2002) Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems, 5th edn. Prentice Hall International, New YorkSeelam A (2009) Reorganization of massive multiagent systems: MOTL/O http://books.google.es/books?id=R-s8cgAACAAJ . Southern Illinois University CarbondaleSo Y, Durfee EH (1993) An organizational self-design model for organizational change. In: AAAI93 workshop on AI and theories of groups and oranizations, pp 8–15So Y, Durfee EH (1998) Designing organizations for computational agents. Simulating organizations. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 47–64Schwaninger M (2000) A theory for optimal organization. Technical report. Institute of Management at the University of St. Gallen, SwitzerlandTantipathananandh C, Berger-Wolf TY (2011) Finding communities in dynamic social networks. In: IEEE 11th international conference on data mining 2011, pp 1236–1241Wang Z, Liang X (2006) A graph based simulation of reorganization in multi-agent systems. In: IEEE WICACM international conference on intelligent agent technology, pp 129–132Wang D, Tse Q, Zhou Y (2011) A decentralized search engine for dynamic web communities. Knowl Inf Syst 26(1):105–125Weick KE (1979) The social psychology of organizing, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, ReadingWeyns D, Haesevoets R, Helleboogh A, Holvoet T, Joosen W (2010a) The MACODO middleware for context-driven dynamic agent organizations. ACM Transact Auton Adapt Syst 3:1–3:28Weyns D, Malek S, Andersson J (2010b) FORMS: a formal reference model for self-adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on autonomic computing, pp 205–214Weyns D, Georgeff M (2010) Self-adaptation using multiagent systems. IEEE Softw 27(1):86–91Zhong C (2006) An investigation of reorganization algorithms. Master-thesi

Generating Functions For Kernels of Digraphs (Enumeration & Asymptotics for Nim Games)

In this article, we study directed graphs (digraphs) with a coloring constraint due to Von Neumann and related to Nim-type games. This is equivalent to the notion of kernels of digraphs, which appears in numerous fields of research such as game theory, complexity theory, artificial intelligence (default logic, argumentation in multi-agent systems), 0-1 laws in monadic second order logic, combinatorics (perfect graphs)... Kernels of digraphs lead to numerous difficult questions (in the sense of NP-completeness, #P-completeness). However, we show here that it is possible to use a generating function approach to get new informations: we use technique of symbolic and analytic combinatorics (generating functions and their singularities) in order to get exact and asymptotic results, e.g. for the existence of a kernel in a circuit or in a unicircuit digraph. This is a first step toward a generatingfunctionology treatment of kernels, while using, e.g., an approach "a la Wright". Our method could be applied to more general "local coloring constraints" in decomposable combinatorial structures.Comment: Presented (as a poster) to the conference Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics (Vancouver, 2004), electronic proceeding