Computing optimal coalition structures in polynomial time

The optimal coalition structure determination problem is in general computationally hard. In this article, we identify some problem instances for which the space of possible coalition structures has a certain form and constructively prove that the problem is polynomial time solvable. Specifically, we consider games with an ordering over the players and introduce a distance metric for measuring the distance between any two structures. In terms of this metric, we define the property of monotonicity, meaning that coalition structures closer to the optimal, as measured by the metric, have higher value than those further away. Similarly, quasi-monotonicity means that part of the space of coalition structures is monotonic, while part of it is non-monotonic. (Quasi)-monotonicity is a property that can be satisfied by coalition games in characteristic function form and also those in partition function form. For a setting with a monotonic value function and a known player ordering, we prove that the optimal coalition structure determination problem is polynomial time solvable and devise such an algorithm using a greedy approach. We extend this algorithm to quasi-monotonic value functions and demonstrate how its time complexity improves from exponential to polynomial as the degree of monotonicity of the value function increases. We go further and consider a setting in which the value function is monotonic and an ordering over the players is known to exist but ordering itself is unknown. For this setting too, we prove that the coalition structure determination problem is polynomial time solvable and devise such an algorithm

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

Intelligent negotiation model for ubiquitous group decision scenarios

Supporting group decision-making in ubiquitous contexts is a complex task that must deal with a large amount of factors to succeed. Here we propose an approach for an intelligent negotiation model to support the group decision-making process specially designed for ubiquitous contexts. Our approach can be used by researchers that intend to include arguments, complex algorithms and agents' modelling in a negotiation model. It uses a social networking logic due to the type of communication employed by the agents and it intends to support the ubiquitous group decision-making process in a similar way to the real process, which simultaneously preserves the amount and quality of intelligence generated in face-to-face meetings. We propose a new look into this problematic by considering and defining strategies to deal with important points such as the type of attributes in the multicriteria problems, agents' reasoning and intelligent dialogues.This work has been supported by COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness) within project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007043, by National Funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within the Projects UID/CEC/00319/2013, UID/EEA/00760/2013, and the João Carneiro PhD grant with the reference SFRH/BD/89697/2012 and by Project MANTIS - Cyber Physical System Based Proactive Collaborative Maintenance (ECSEL JU Grant nr. 662189).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Empowering Qualitative Research Methods in Education with Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence is one of the fastest growing disciplines, disrupting many sectors. Originally mainly for computer scientists and engineers, it has been expanding its horizons and empowering many other disciplines contributing to the development of many novel applications in many sectors. These include medicine and health care, business and finance, psychology and neuroscience, physics and biology to mention a few. However, one of the disciplines in which artificial intelligence has not been fully explored and exploited yet is education. In this discipline, many research methods are employed by scholars, lecturers and practitioners to investigate the impact of different instructional approaches on learning and to understand the ways skills and knowledge are acquired by learners. One of these is qualitative research, a scientific method grounded in observations that manipulates and analyses non-numerical data. It focuses on seeking answers to why and how a particular observed phenomenon occurs rather than on its occurrences. This study aims to explore and discuss the impact of artificial intelligence on qualitative research methods. In particular, it focuses on how artificial intelligence have empowered qualitative research methods so far, and how it can be used in education for enhancing teaching and learning

Power and welfare in bargaining for coalition structure formation

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9310-8.We investigate a noncooperative bargaining game for partitioning n agents into non-overlapping coalitions. The game has n time periods during which the players are called according to an exogenous agenda to propose offers. With probability δ, the game ends during any time period t< n. If it does, the first t players on the agenda get a chance to propose but the others do not. Thus, δ is a measure of the degree of democracy within the game (ranging from democracy for δ= 0 , through increasing levels of authoritarianism as δ approaches 1, to dictatorship for δ= 1). We determine the subgame perfect equilibrium (SPE) and study how a player’s position on the agenda affects his bargaining power. We analyze the relation between the distribution of power of individual players, the level of democracy, and the welfare efficiency of the game. We find that purely democratic games are welfare inefficient and that introducing a degree of authoritarianism into the game makes the distribution of power more equitable and also maximizes welfare. These results remain invariant under two types of player preferences: one where each player’s preference is a total order on the space of possible coalition structures and the other where each player either likes or dislikes a coalition structure. Finally, we show that the SPE partition may or may not be core stable

Towards a global participatory platform Democratising open data, complexity science and collective intelligence

The FuturICT project seeks to use the power of big data, analytic models grounded in complexity science, and the collective intelligence they yield for societal benefit. Accordingly, this paper argues that these new tools should not remain the preserve of restricted government, scientific or corporate élites, but be opened up for societal engagement and critique. To democratise such assets as a public good, requires a sustainable ecosystem enabling different kinds of stakeholder in society, including but not limited to, citizens and advocacy groups, school and university students, policy analysts, scientists, software developers, journalists and politicians. Our working name for envisioning a sociotechnical infrastructure capable of engaging such a wide constituency is the Global Participatory Platform (GPP). We consider what it means to develop a GPP at the different levels of data, models and deliberation, motivating a framework for different stakeholders to find their ecological niches at different levels within the system, serving the functions of (i) sensing the environment in order to pool data, (ii) mining the resulting data for patterns in order to model the past/present/future, and (iii) sharing and contesting possible interpretations of what those models might mean, and in a policy context, possible decisions. A research objective is also to apply the concepts and tools of complexity science and social science to the project’s own work. We therefore conceive the global participatory platform as a resilient, epistemic ecosystem, whose design will make it capable of self-organization and adaptation to a dynamic environment, and whose structure and contributions are themselves networks of stakeholders, challenges, issues, ideas and arguments whose structure and dynamics can be modelled and analysed

Culture and low-carbon energy transitions

How does culture influence low-carbon energy transitions? How can insights about cultural influences guide energy planners and policymakers trying to stimulate transitions, particularly at a time of rapid technological change? This Review examines the influence of culture on a selection of low-carbon technologies and behavioural practices that reflect different dimensions of sustainability. Based on a typology of low-carbon technology and behaviour, we explore the cultural dimensions of four specific cases: eco-driving, ridesharing, automated vehicles and whole-house retrofits. We conclude with recommendations for those seeking to analyse, understand, develop, demonstrate and deploy low-carbon innovations for sustainable energy transitions