201 research outputs found

    Implementing Argumentation-enabled Empathic Agents

    Full text link
    In a previous publication, we introduced the core concepts of empathic agents as agents that use a combination of utility-based and rule-based approaches to resolve conflicts when interacting with other agents in their environment. In this work, we implement proof-of-concept prototypes of empathic agents with the multi-agent systems development framework Jason and apply argumentation theory to extend the previously introduced concepts to account for inconsistencies between the beliefs of different agents. We then analyze the feasibility of different admissible set-based argumentation semantics to resolve these inconsistencies. As a result of the analysis we identify the maximal ideal extension as the most feasible argumentation semantics for the problem in focus.Comment: Accepted for/presented at the 16th European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2018

    Abstract Argumentation

    Full text link

    Reasons and options for updating an opponent model in persuasion dialogues.

    Get PDF

    dynPARTIX - A Dynamic Programming Reasoner for Abstract Argumentation

    Full text link
    The aim of this paper is to announce the release of a novel system for abstract argumentation which is based on decomposition and dynamic programming. We provide first experimental evaluations to show the feasibility of this approach.Comment: The paper appears in the Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management (INAP 2011

    Challenges in Bridging Social Semantics and Formal Semantics on the Web

    Get PDF
    This paper describes several results of Wimmics, a research lab which names stands for: web-instrumented man-machine interactions, communities, and semantics. The approaches introduced here rely on graph-oriented knowledge representation, reasoning and operationalization to model and support actors, actions and interactions in web-based epistemic communities. The re-search results are applied to support and foster interactions in online communities and manage their resources

    Metric for Security Activities assisted by Argumentative Logic

    No full text
    International audienceRecent security concerns related to future embedded systems make enforcement of security requirements one of the most critical phases when designing such systems. This paper introduces an approach for efficient enforcement of security requirements based on argumentative logic, especially reasoning about activation or deactivation of different security mechanisms under certain functional and non-functional requirements. In this paper, the argumentative logic is used to reason about the rationale behind dynamic enforcement of security policies

    Balancing between cognitive and semantic acceptability of arguments

    Get PDF
    This paper addresses the problem concerning approximating human cognitions and semantic extensions regarding acceptability status of arguments. We introduce three types of logical equilibriums in terms of satisfiability, entailment and semantic equivalence in order to analyse balance of human cognitions and semantic extensions. The generality of our proposal is shown by the existence conditions of equilibrium solutions. The applicability of our proposal is demonstrated by the fact that it detects a flaw of argumentation actually taking place in an online forum and suggests its possible resolution

    Computing Consensus: A Logic for Reasoning About Deliberative Processes Based on Argumentation

    Get PDF
    Argumentation theory can encode an agent’s assessment of the state of an exchange of points of view. We present a conservative model of multiple agents potentially disagreeing on the views presented during a process of deliberation. We model this process as iteratively adding points of view (arguments), or aspects of points of view. This gives rise to a modal logic, deliberative dynamic logic, which permits us to reason about the possible developments of the deliberative state. The logic we propose applies to all natural semantics of argumentation theory. Furthermore, under a very weak assumption that the consensus considered by a group of agents is faithful to their individual views, we show that model checking these models is feasible, as long as the argumentation frameworks, which may be infinite, does not have infinite branching.acceptedVersio

    Interpretability of Gradual Semantics in Abstract Argumentation

    Get PDF
    International audiencergumentation, in the field of Artificial Intelligence, is a for-malism allowing to reason with contradictory information as well as tomodel an exchange of arguments between one or several agents. For thispurpose, many semantics have been defined with, amongst them, grad-ual semantics aiming to assign an acceptability degree to each argument.Although the number of these semantics continues to increase, there iscurrently no method allowing to explain the results returned by thesesemantics. In this paper, we study the interpretability of these seman-tics by measuring, for each argument, the impact of the other argumentson its acceptability degree. We define a new property and show that thescore of an argument returned by a gradual semantics which satisfies thisproperty can also be computed by aggregating the impact of the otherarguments on it. This result allows to provide, for each argument in anargumentation framework, a ranking between arguments from the most to the least impacting ones w.r.t a given gradual semantic

    Introducing Preference-Based Argumentation to Inconsistent Ontological Knowledge Bases

    Get PDF
    International audienceHandling inconsistency is an inherent part of decision making in traditional agri-food chains – due to the various concerns involved. In order to explain the source of inconsistency and represent the existing conflicts in the ontological knowledge base, argumentation theory can be used. However, the current state of art methodology does not allow to take into account the level of significance of the knowledge expressed by the various ontological knowledge sources. We propose to use preferences in order to model those differences between formulas and evaluate our proposal practically by implementing it within the INRA platform and showing a use case using this formalism in a bread making decision support system
    • …
    corecore