Identification of fullerene-like CdSe nanoparticles from optical spectroscopy calculations

Semiconducting nanoparticles are the building blocks of optical nanodevices as their electronic states, and therefore light absorption and emission, can be controlled by modifying their size and shape. CdSe is perhaps the most studied of these nanoparticles, due to the efficiency of its synthesis, the high quality of the resulting samples, and the fact that the optical gap is in the visible range. In this article, we study light absorption of CdSe nanostructures with sizes up to 1.5 nm within density functional theory. We study both bulk fragments with wurtzite symmetry and novel fullerene-like core-cage structures. The comparison with recent experimental optical spectra allows us to confirm the synthesis of these fullerene-like CdSe clusters

Towards Formal Modeling of Affective Agents in a BDI Architecture

[EN] Affective characteristics are crucial factors that influence human behavior, and often the prevalence of either emotions or reason varies on each individual. We aim to facilitate the development of agents reasoning considering their affective characteristics. We first identify core processes in an affective BDI agent, and we integrate them into an affective agent architecture (GenIA3). These tasks include the extension of the BDI agent reasoning cycle to be compliant with the architecture, and the extension of the agent language (Jason) to support affect-based reasoning, and the adjustment of the equilibrium between the agent s affective and rational sides.This work was supported by the Generalitat Valenciana grant PROMETEOII/2013/019, and the Spanish TIN2014-55206-R project of the Ministerio de Economa y Competitividad.Alfonso Espinosa, B.; Vivancos, E.; Botti, V. (2017). Towards Formal Modeling of Affective Agents in a BDI Architecture. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology. 17(1):5:1-5:23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3001584S5:15:23171Bexy Alfonso, Emilio Vivancos, and Vicente J. Botti. 2014. An open architecture for affective traits in a BDI agent. In Proceedings of the 6th ECTA 2014. Part of the 6th IJCCI 2014. 320--325.Bexy Alfonso, Emilio Vivancos, and Vicente J. Botti. 2016a. Design of an Affective Intelligent Agent on GenIA. Technical Report. DSIC, UPV, Spain.Bexy Alfonso, Emilio Vivancos, and Vicente J. Botti. 2016b. Toward a Systematic Development of Affective Intelligent Agents. Technical Report. DSIC, UPV, Spain.Gordon Willard Allport. 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. Henry Holt, New York.Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84, 2 (1977), 191.Cristina Battaglino, Rossana Damiano, and Leonardo Lesmo. Emotional range in value-sensitive deliberation. In Proceedings of AAMAS’13. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 769--776.Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, and Antonio R Damasio. 2000. Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex 10, 3 (2000), 295--307.Rafael H. Bordini and Jomi Fred Hübner. 2010. Semantics for the Jason variant of AgentSpeak (plan failure and some internal actions). In Proceedings of ECAI’10. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 635--640.Rafael H. Bordini, Jomi Fred Hübner, and Michael Wooldridge. 2007. Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. Wiley.Tibor Bosse, Joost Broekens, João Dias, and Janneke van der Zwaan. 2014. Emotion Modeling. Springer.Scott Brave, Clifford Nass, and Kevin Hutchinson. 2005. Computers that care: Investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-computer Studies 62, 2 (2005), 161--178.Jerome R. Busemeyer, Eric Dimperio, and Ryan K. Jessup. 2007. Integrating Emotional Processes Into Decision-Making Models. Oxford University Press, 29--44.Colin F Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin. 2011. Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton University Press.Martin A Conway. 1990. Autobiographical Memory: An Introduction. Open University Press.Ronald De Sousa. 1990. The Rationality of Emotion. MIT Press.João Dias, Samuel Mascarenhas, and Ana Paiva. 2014. FAtiMA Modular: Towards an Agent Architecture with a Generic Appraisal Framework. Springer International Publishing, 44--56. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12973-0_3Magy Seif El-Nasr, John Yen, and Thomas R Ioerger. 2000. Flame—fuzzy logic adaptive model of emotions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent systems 3, 3 (2000), 219--257.Hans Jürgen Eysenck. 1982. Personality, Genetics, and Behavior: Selected Papers. Praeger, Chapter Development of a Theory, 1--48.Shane Frederick. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, 4 (2005), 25--42.N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, and S. Bem. 2000. Emotions and Beliefs: How Feelings Influence Thoughts. Cambridge University Press.Nico H. Frijda. 2007. The Laws of Emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated.Patrick Gebhard. 2005. ALMA: A layered model of affect. In Proceedings of the 4th AAMAS. ACM, New York, NY, 29--36. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1082473.1082478Lewis R. Goldberg and others. 1990. An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 6 (1990), 1216--1229.James J. Gross and Ross A. Thompson. 2011. Emotion regulation: Conceptual fundations. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation. Guilford Publications.JonathanY. Ito, DavidV. Pynadath, and StacyC. Marsella. 2010. Modeling self-deception within a decision-theoretic framework. AAMAS 20, 1 (2010), 3--13. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-009-9096-7William G. Kennedy. 2012. Modelling human behaviour in agent-based models. In Agent-based Models of Geographical Systems. Springer, 167--179.Jonathan Klein, Youngme Moon, and Rosalind W. Picard. 2002. This computer responds to user frustration: Theory, design, and results. Interacting with Computers 14, 2 (2002), 119--140.Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer.Stacy Marsella and Jonathan Gratch. 2003. Modeling coping behavior in virtual humans: Don’t worry, be happy. In Proceedings of AAMAS’03. ACM, 313--320. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/860575.860626Stacy C. Marsella and Jonathan Gratch. 2009. EMA: A process model of appraisal dynamics. Cognitive Systems Research 10, 1 (2009), 70--90.Stacy C. Marsella, Jonathan Gratch, and Paolo Petta. 2010. Computational models of emotion. In A Blueprint for Affective Computing: A Sourcebook and Manual. OUP Oxford, 21--46.Robert R. McCrae and Oliver P. John. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60, 2 (1992), 175--215.Albert Mehrabian. 1996a. Analysis of the big-five personality factors in terms of the PAD temperament model. Australian Journal of Psychology 48, 2 (1996), 86--92. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049539608259510Albert Mehrabian. 1996b. Pleasure-arousal-dominance: A general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in temperament. Current Psychology 14, 4 (1996), 261--292. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02686918Albert Mehrabian and James A. Russell. 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press.John-Jules Ch. Meyer. 2006. Reasoning about emotional agents. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 21, 6 (June 2006), 601--619. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/int.v21:6Katherine Nelson. 1993. The psychological and social origins of autobiographical memory. Psychological Science 4, 1 (1993), 7--14.Magalie Ochs, David Sadek, and Catherine Pelachaud. 2012. A formal model of emotions for an empathic rational dialog agent. AAMAS 24, 3 (2012), 410--440. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9156-zAndrew Ortony. 2003. On making believable emotional agents believable. In Emotions in Humans and Artifacts, R. P. Trapple, P. Petta, and S. Payer (Eds.). MIT Press, Chapter 6, 189--212.Andrew Ortony, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins. 1988. The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.Rosalind W. Picard and Karen K. Liu. 2007. Relative subjective count and assessment of interruptive technologies applied to mobile monitoring of stress. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 4 (2007), 361--375.César F. Pimentel and Maria R. Cravo. 2005. Affective revision. In Progress in Artificial Intelligence, Carlos Bento, Amílcar Cardoso, and Gaël Dias (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 3808. Springer Berlin, 115--126.Gordon D. Plotkin. 1981. A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19. Aarhus University.Anand S. Rao. 1996. Agentspeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Rudy Van Hoe (Ed.). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Rainer Reisenzein, Eva Hudlicka, Mehdi Dastani, Jonathan Gratch, Koen Hindriks, Emiliano Lorini, and J-JC Meyer. 2013. Computational modeling of emotion: Toward improving the inter- and intradisciplinary exchange. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 4, 3 (2013), 246--266.Luis-Felipe Rodríguez and Félix Ramos. 2014. Development of computational models of emotions for autonomous agents: A review. Cognitive Computation 6, 3 (2014), 351--375. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12559-013-9244-xIra J. Roseman. 2001. A Model of Appraisal in the Emotion System: Integrating Theory, Research, and Applications. Oxford University Press, 68--91.James A. Russell. 2003. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review 110, 1 (2003), 145--172.Klaus R. Scherer. 2001. Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research 92 (2001), 120.Norbert Schwarz. 2000. Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition 8 Emotion 14, 4 (2000), 433--440.Leila Selimbegović, Isabelle Régner, Pascal Huguet, and Armand Chatard. 2015. On the power of autobiographical memories: From threat and challenge appraisals to actual behaviour. Memory (2015), 1--8.Martin Sewell. 2010. Emotions help solve the prisoner’s dilemma. In Proceedings of the Behavioural Finance Working Group Conference: Fairness, Trust and Emotions in Finance, London. 1--2.Craig A. Smith and Richard S. Lazarus. 1990. Emotion and adaptation. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Lawrence A. Pervin (Ed.). 609--637.Bas R. Steunebrink, Mehdi Dastani, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. 2009. A formal model of emotion-based action tendency for intelligent agents. In Proceedings of EPIA’09. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 174--186. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04686-5_15Bas R. Steunebrink, Mehdi Dastani, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. 2012. A formal model of emotion triggers: An approach for BDI agents. Synthese 185 (2012), 83--129. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0004-8AW Tucker. 1983. The mathematics of tucker: A sampler. The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal 14, 3 (1983), 228--232.Renata Vieira, Álvaro F. Moreira, Michael Wooldridge, and Rafael H. Bordini. 2007. On the formal semantics of speech-act based communication in an agent-oriented programming language. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 29 (2007), 221--267.G. Weiss. 2013. Multiagent Systems. MIT Press

A multidimensional culturally adapted representation of emotions for affective computational simulation and recognition

[EN] One of the main challenges in affective computing is the development of models to represent the information that is inherent to emotions. It is necessary to consider that the terms used by humans to name emotions depend on the culture and language used. This article presents an experiment-based method to represent and adapt emotion terms to different cultural environments. We propose using circular boxplots to analyze the distribution of emotions in the Pleasure-Arousal space. From the results of this analysis, we define a new cross-cultural representation model of emotions in which each emotion term is assigned to an area in the Pleasure-Arousal space. An emotion is represented by a vector in which the direction indicates the type, and the module indicates the intensity of the emotion. We propose two methods based on fuzzy logic to represent and express emotions: the emotion representation process in which the term associated with the recognized emotion is defuzzified and projected as a vector in the Pleasure-Arousal space; and the emotion expression process in which a fuzzification of the vector is produced, generating a fuzzy emotion term that is adapted to the culture and language in which the emotion will be used.This work was supported in part by the Spanish Government project TIN2017-89156-R, Generalitat Valenciana, and European Social Fund by the FPI Grant ACIF/2017/085, in part GVA-CEICE project PROMETEO/2018/002, and TAILOR, a project funded by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under GA No 952215.Taverner-Aparicio, JJ.; Vivancos, E.; Botti V. (2023). A multidimensional culturally adapted representation of emotions for affective computational simulation and recognition. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. 14(1):761-772. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2020.303058676177214

Reasoning about norms under uncertainty in dynamic environments

The behaviour of norm-autonomous agents is determined by their goals and the norms that are explicitly represented inside their minds. Thus, they require mechanisms for acquiring and accepting norms, determining when norms are relevant to their case, and making decisions about norm compliance. Up until now the existing proposals on norm-autonomous agents assume that agents interact within a deterministic environment that is certainly perceived. In practise, agents interact by means of sensors and actuators under uncertainty with non-deterministic and dynamic environments. Therefore, the existing proposals are unsuitable or, even, useless to be applied when agents have a physical presence in some real-world environment. In response to this problem we have developed the n-BDI architecture. In this paper, we propose a multi-context graded BDI architecture (called n-BDI) that models norm-autonomous agents able to deal with uncertainty in dynamic environments. The n-BDI architecture has been experimentally evaluated and the results are shown in this paper. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Strategies for cooperation emergence in distributed service discovery

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Cybernetics and Systems on APR 3 2014], available online:http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/01969722.2014.894848[EN] In distributed environments where entities only have a partial view of the system, cooperation plays a key issue. In the case of decentralized service discovery in open agent societies, agents only know about the services they provide and who are their direct neighbors. Therefore, they need the cooperation of their neighbors in order to locate the required services. However, cooperation is not always present in open systems. Non-cooperative agents pursuing their own goals could refuse to forward queries from other agents to avoid the cost of this action; therefore, the efficiency of the decentralized service discovery could be seriously damaged. In this paper, we propose the ombination of incentives and local structural changes in order to promote cooperation in the service discovery process. The results show that, even in scenarios where the predominant behavior is not collaborative cooperation emerges.The work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through grants TIN2009-13839-C03-01, TIN2012-36586-C03-01, CSD2007-0022 (CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010).Del Val Noguera, E.; Rebollo Pedruelo, M.; Botti, V. (2014). Strategies for cooperation emergence in distributed service discovery. Cybernetics and Systems. 45(3):220-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/01969722.2014.894848S220240453Blanc , A. , Y.K. Liu , and A. Vahdat . “Designing Incentives for Peer-to-Peer Routing.” InProceedings of the 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, Vol. 1, pp. 374–385, 2005 .del Val , E. “Semantic Service Management in Service-Oriented Multi-Agent Systems.” Ph.D. thesis, Departament de Sistemes Informàtics i Computació, Universitat Politècnica de València, 2013 .Del Val, E., Rebollo, M., & Botti, V. (2012). Enhancing decentralized service discovery in open service-oriented multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(1), 1-30. doi:10.1007/s10458-012-9210-0DORAN, J. E., FRANKLIN, S., JENNINGS, N. R., & NORMAN, T. J. (1997). On cooperation in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 12(3), 309-314. doi:10.1017/s0269888997003111Eguíluz, V. M., Zimmermann, M. G., Cela‐Conde, C. J., & Miguel, M. S. (2005). Cooperation and the Emergence of Role Differentiation in the Dynamics of Social Networks. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 977-1008. doi:10.1086/428716Griffiths , N. and M. Luck . “Changing Neighbours: Improving Tag-Based Cooperation.” InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1.(AAMAS'10), 249–256. Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2010 .Gu , B. and S. Jarvenpaa . “Are Contributions to p2p Technical Forums Private or Public Goods? An Empirical Investigation.” Paper presented at the 1st Workshop on Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems, June 4–5, 2004, Harvard University .Hauert, C., Traulsen, A., Brandt, H., Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2007). Via Freedom to Coercion: The Emergence of Costly Punishment. Science, 316(5833), 1905-1907. doi:10.1126/science.1141588Hofmann , L.M. , N. Chakraborty , and K. Sycara . “The Evolution of Cooperation in Self-Interested Agent Societies: A Critical Study.” InProceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Volume 2 , edited by K. Tumer , P. Yolum , L. Sonenberg , and P. Stone , 685–692. IFAAMAS, 2011 .Lin, W. S., Zhao, H. V., & Liu, K. J. R. (2009). Incentive Cooperation Strategies for Peer-to-Peer Live Multimedia Streaming Social Networks. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 11(3), 396-412. doi:10.1109/tmm.2009.2012915Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560-1563. doi:10.1126/science.1133755Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393(6685), 573-577. doi:10.1038/31225Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441(7092), 502-505. doi:10.1038/nature04605Santos, F. C., Santos, M. D., & Pacheco, J. M. (2008). Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games. Nature, 454(7201), 213-216. doi:10.1038/nature06940Shneidman , J. and D. C. Parkes . “Rationality and Self-Interest in Peer to Peer Networks.” Paper presented at the 2nd Int. Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS’03), February 20–21, 2003, Berkeley, CA .Sigmund, K. (2007). Punish or perish? Retaliation and collaboration among humans. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(11), 593-600. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.06.012Sigmund, K. (2009). Sympathy and similarity: The evolutionary dynamics of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(21), 8405-8406. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903947106Sigmund, K., Hauert, C., & Nowak, M. A. (2001). Reward and punishment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(19), 10757-10762. doi:10.1073/pnas.161155698Sun , Q. and H. Garcia-Molina . “Slic: A Selfish Link-Based Incentive Mechanism for Unstructured Peer-To-Peer Networks.” Paper presented at the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS’04), March 23–26, 2004, Washington, DC .Villatoro , D. , J. Sabater-Mir , and S. Sen . “Social Instruments for Robust Convention Emergence.”Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, edited by T. Walsh, 420–425, 2011

Using a Hybrid Recommending System for Learning Videos in Flipped Classrooms and MOOCs

[EN] New challenges in education require new ways of education. Higher education has adapted to these new challenges by means of offering new types of training like massive online open courses and by updating their teaching methodology using novel approaches as flipped classrooms. These types of training have enabled universities to better adapt to the challenges posed by the pandemic. In addition, high quality learning objects are necessary for these new forms of education to be successful, with learning videos being the most common learning objects to provide theoretical concepts. This paper describes a new approach of a previously presented hybrid learning recommender system based on content-based techniques, which was capable of recommend useful videos to learners and lecturers from a learning video repository. In this new approach, the content-based techniques are also combined with a collaborative filtering module, which increases the probability of recommending relevant videos. This hybrid technique has been successfully applied to a real scenario in the central video repository of the Universitat Politècnica de València.This research was partially supported by MINECO/FEDER RTI2018-095390-B-C31 and TIN2017-89156-R projects of the Spanish government, and PROMETEO/2018/002 project of Generalitat Valenciana.Jordán, J.; Valero Cubas, S.; Turró, C.; Botti, V. (2021). Using a Hybrid Recommending System for Learning Videos in Flipped Classrooms and MOOCs. Electronics. 10(11):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10111226S119101

Knowledge Acquisition by Networks of Interacting Agents in the Presence of Observation Errors

In this work we investigate knowledge acquisition as performed by multiple agents interacting as they infer, under the presence of observation errors, respective models of a complex system. We focus the specific case in which, at each time step, each agent takes into account its current observation as well as the average of the models of its neighbors. The agents are connected by a network of interaction of Erd\H{o}s-Renyi or Barabasi-Albert type. First we investigate situations in which one of the agents has a different probability of observation error (higher or lower). It is shown that the influence of this special agent over the quality of the models inferred by the rest of the network can be substantial, varying linearly with the respective degree of the agent with different estimation error. In case the degree of this agent is taken as a respective fitness parameter, the effect of the different estimation error is even more pronounced, becoming superlinear. To complement our analysis, we provide the analytical solution of the overall behavior of the system. We also investigate the knowledge acquisition dynamic when the agents are grouped into communities. We verify that the inclusion of edges between agents (within a community) having higher probability of observation error promotes the loss of quality in the estimation of the agents in the other communities.Comment: 10 pages, 7 figures. A working manuscrip

An Abstract Framework for Non-Cooperative Multi-Agent Planning

[EN] In non-cooperative multi-agent planning environments, it is essential to have a system that enables the agents¿ strategic behavior. It is also important to consider all planning phases, i.e., goal allocation, strategic planning, and plan execution, in order to solve a complete problem. Currently, we have no evidence of the existence of any framework that brings together all these phases for non-cooperative multi-agent planning environments. In this work, an exhaustive study is made to identify existing approaches for the different phases as well as frameworks and different applicable techniques in each phase. Thus, an abstract framework that covers all the necessary phases to solve these types of problems is proposed. In addition, we provide a concrete instantiation of the abstract framework using different techniques to promote all the advantages that the framework can offer. A case study is also carried out to show an illustrative example of how to solve a non-cooperative multi-agent planning problem with the presented framework. This work aims to establish a base on which to implement all the necessary phases using the appropriate technologies in each of them and to solve complex problems in different domains of application for non-cooperative multi-agent planning settings.This work was partially funded by MINECO/FEDER RTI2018-095390-B-C31 project of the Spanish government. Jaume Jordan and Vicent Botti are funded by Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV) PAID-06-18 project. Jaume Jordan is also funded by grant APOSTD/2018/010 of Generalitat Valenciana Fondo Social Europeo.Jordán, J.; Bajo, J.; Botti, V.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2019). An Abstract Framework for Non-Cooperative Multi-Agent Planning. Applied Sciences. 9(23):1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9235180S118923De Weerdt, M., & Clement, B. (2009). Introduction to planning in multiagent systems. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 5(4), 345-355. doi:10.3233/mgs-2009-0133Dunne, P. E., Kraus, S., Manisterski, E., & Wooldridge, M. (2010). Solving coalitional resource games. Artificial Intelligence, 174(1), 20-50. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2009.09.005Torreño, A., Onaindia, E., Komenda, A., & Štolba, M. (2018). Cooperative Multi-Agent Planning. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(6), 1-32. doi:10.1145/3128584Fikes, R. E., & Nilsson, N. J. (1971). Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3-4), 189-208. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(71)90010-5Hoffmann, J., & Nebel, B. (2001). The FF Planning System: Fast Plan Generation Through Heuristic Search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 14, 253-302. doi:10.1613/jair.855Dukeman, A., & Adams, J. A. (2017). Hybrid mission planning with coalition formation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 31(6), 1424-1466. doi:10.1007/s10458-017-9367-7Hadad, M., Kraus, S., Ben-Arroyo Hartman, I., & Rosenfeld, A. (2013). Group planning with time constraints. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 69(3), 243-291. doi:10.1007/s10472-013-9363-9Guo, Y., Pan, Q., Sun, Q., Zhao, C., Wang, D., & Feng, M. (2019). Cooperative Game-based Multi-Agent Path Planning with Obstacle Avoidance*. 2019 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE). doi:10.1109/isie.2019.8781205v. Neumann, J. (1928). Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische Annalen, 100(1), 295-320. doi:10.1007/bf01448847Mookherjee, D., & Sopher, B. (1994). Learning Behavior in an Experimental Matching Pennies Game. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(1), 62-91. doi:10.1006/game.1994.1037Ochs, J. (1995). Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria: An Experimental Study. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 202-217. doi:10.1006/game.1995.1030Applegate, C., Elsaesser, C., & Sanborn, J. (1990). An architecture for adversarial planning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 20(1), 186-194. doi:10.1109/21.47820Sailer, F., Buro, M., & Lanctot, M. (2007). Adversarial Planning Through Strategy Simulation. 2007 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games. doi:10.1109/cig.2007.368082Willmott, S., Richardson, J., Bundy, A., & Levine, J. (2001). Applying adversarial planning techniques to Go. Theoretical Computer Science, 252(1-2), 45-82. doi:10.1016/s0304-3975(00)00076-1Nau, D. S., Au, T. C., Ilghami, O., Kuter, U., Murdock, J. W., Wu, D., & Yaman, F. (2003). SHOP2: An HTN Planning System. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 20, 379-404. doi:10.1613/jair.1141Knuth, D. E., & Moore, R. W. (1975). An analysis of alpha-beta pruning. Artificial Intelligence, 6(4), 293-326. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(75)90019-3Vickrey, W. (1961). COUNTERSPECULATION, AUCTIONS, AND COMPETITIVE SEALED TENDERS. The Journal of Finance, 16(1), 8-37. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02789.xClarke, E. H. (1971). Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11(1), 17-33. doi:10.1007/bf01726210Groves, T. (1973). Incentives in Teams. Econometrica, 41(4), 617. doi:10.2307/1914085Savaux, J., Vion, J., Piechowiak, S., Mandiau, R., Matsui, T., Hirayama, K., … Silaghi, M. (2016). DisCSPs with Privacy Recast as Planning Problems for Self-Interested Agents. 2016 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI). doi:10.1109/wi.2016.0057Buzing, P., Mors, A. ter, Valk, J., & Witteveen, C. (2006). Coordinating Self-interested Planning Agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 12(2), 199-218. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-6104-4Ter Mors, A., & Witteveen, C. (s. f.). Coordinating Non Cooperative Planning Agents: Complexity Results. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology. doi:10.1109/iat.2005.60Hrnčíř, J., Rovatsos, M., & Jakob, M. (2015). Ridesharing on Timetabled Transport Services: A Multiagent Planning Approach. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 19(1), 89-105. doi:10.1080/15472450.2014.941759Galuszka, A., & Swierniak, A. (2009). Planning in Multi-agent Environment Using Strips Representation and Non-cooperative Equilibrium Strategy. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 58(3-4), 239-251. doi:10.1007/s10846-009-9364-4Rosenthal, R. W. (1973). A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria. International Journal of Game Theory, 2(1), 65-67. doi:10.1007/bf01737559Jordán, J., Torreño, A., de Weerdt, M., & Onaindia, E. (2017). A better-response strategy for self-interested planning agents. Applied Intelligence, 48(4), 1020-1040. doi:10.1007/s10489-017-1046-5Veloso, M., Muñoz-Avila, H., & Bergmann, R. (1996). Case-based planning: selected methods and systems. AI Communications, 9(3), 128-137. doi:10.3233/aic-1996-9305VOORNEVELD, M., BORM, P., VAN MEGEN, F., TIJS, S., & FACCHINI, G. (1999). CONGESTION GAMES AND POTENTIALS RECONSIDERED. International Game Theory Review, 01(03n04), 283-299. doi:10.1142/s0219198999000219Han-Lim Choi, Brunet, L., & How, J. P. (2009). Consensus-Based Decentralized Auctions for Robust Task Allocation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 25(4), 912-926. doi:10.1109/tro.2009.2022423Monderer, D., & Shapley, L. S. (1996). Potential Games. Games and Economic Behavior, 14(1), 124-143. doi:10.1006/game.1996.0044Friedman, J. W., & Mezzetti, C. (2001). Learning in Games by Random Sampling. Journal of Economic Theory, 98(1), 55-84. doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2694Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches. AI Communications, 7(1), 39-59. doi:10.3233/aic-1994-7104Bertsekas, D. P. (1988). The auction algorithm: A distributed relaxation method for the assignment problem. Annals of Operations Research, 14(1), 105-123. doi:10.1007/bf02186476Bertsekas, D. P., & Castanon, D. A. (1989). The auction algorithm for the transportation problem. Annals of Operations Research, 20(1), 67-96. doi:10.1007/bf0221692

From Affect Theoretical Foundations to Computational Models of Intelligent Affective Agents

[EN] The links between emotions and rationality have been extensively studied and discussed. Several computational approaches have also been proposed to model these links. However, is it possible to build generic computational approaches and languages so that they can be "adapted " when a specific affective phenomenon is being modeled? Would these approaches be sufficiently and properly grounded? In this work, we want to provide the means for the development of these generic approaches and languages by making a horizontal analysis inspired by philosophical and psychological theories of the main affective phenomena that are traditionally studied. Unfortunately, not all the affective theories can be adapted to be used in computational models; therefore, it is necessary to perform an analysis of the most suitable theories. In this analysis, we identify and classify the main processes and concepts which can be used in a generic affective computational model, and we propose a theoretical framework that includes all these processes and concepts that a model of an affective agent with practical reasoning could use. Our generic theoretical framework supports incremental research whereby future proposals can improve previous ones. This framework also supports the evaluation of the coverage of current computational approaches according to the processes that are modeled and according to the integration of practical reasoning and affect-related issues. This framework is being used in the development of the GenIA(3) architecture.This work is partially supported by the Spanish Government projects PID2020-113416RB-I00, GVA-CEICE project PROMETEO/2018/002, and TAILOR, a project funded by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under GA No 952215.Alfonso, B.; Taverner-Aparicio, JJ.; Vivancos, E.; Botti, V. (2021). From Affect Theoretical Foundations to Computational Models of Intelligent Affective Agents. Applied Sciences. 11(22):1-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210874S129112

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