- -

Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre: HerasKER413.pdf
Tamaño: 254.3Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión del Autor.
Abrir
[Cerrado]
Nombre: Heras;Botti V.;Julian ...
Tamaño: 207.0Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Solicitar una copia al autor
dc.contributor.author Heras Barberá, Stella María es_ES
dc.contributor.author Botti Navarro, Vicente Juan es_ES
dc.contributor.author Julian Inglada, Vicente Javier es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2014-11-19T09:43:12Z
dc.date.available 2014-11-19T09:43:12Z
dc.date.issued 2009-12
dc.identifier.issn 0269-8889
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/44424
dc.description.abstract [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. es_ES
dc.description.sponsorship 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.
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Cambridge University Press (CUP) es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Knowledge Engineering Review es_ES
dc.rights Reserva de todos los derechos es_ES
dc.subject Negotiation es_ES
dc.subject Deliberation es_ES
dc.subject Duialogue es_ES
dc.subject System es_ES
dc.subject.classification LENGUAJES Y SISTEMAS INFORMATICOS es_ES
dc.title Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.1017/S0269888909990178
dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MEC//CSD2007-00022/ES/Agreement Technologies/ es_ES
dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MEC//TIN2006-14630-C03-01/ES/METODOS, TECNICAS Y HERRAMIENTAS PARA SISTEMAS MULTIAGENTE ABIERTOS/ es_ES
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación - Departament de Sistemes Informàtics i Computació es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation 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/S0269888909990178 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion http://dx.doi.og/10.1017/S0269888909990178 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 327 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 352 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 24 es_ES
dc.description.issue 4 es_ES
dc.relation.senia 34289
dc.contributor.funder Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia
dc.description.references 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 Proceedings of the AAMAS International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 17–34. es_ES
dc.description.references Sycara, K. P. (1990). Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision, 28(3), 203-242. doi:10.1007/bf00162699 es_ES
dc.description.references Ontañón 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Fox J. , Parsons S. 1998. Arguing about beliefs and actions. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1455, 266–302. Springer. es_ES
dc.description.references 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-x es_ES
dc.description.references Aulinas 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Armengol E. , Plaza E. 2001. Lazy induction of descriptions for relational case-based learning. In European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML-01, 13–24. es_ES
dc.description.references 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/s10462-005-4607-7 es_ES
dc.description.references RAHWAN, 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/s0269888904000098 es_ES
dc.description.references Brüninghaus 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Parsons, S. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), 261-292. doi:10.1093/logcom/8.3.261 es_ES
dc.description.references Atkinson, 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-x es_ES
dc.description.references Brüninghaus 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(2/4), 231-287. doi:10.1023/a:1008278309945 es_ES
dc.description.references Gordon T. F. , Karacapilidis N. 1997. The Zeno argumentation framework. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, ACM Press, 10–18. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Rahwan, I. (2005). Guest Editorial: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 115-125. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-3079-0 es_ES
dc.description.references RISSLAND, 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/s0269888906000701 es_ES
dc.description.references Tolchinsky, 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.2006.116 es_ES
dc.description.references McBurney, 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.20191 es_ES
dc.description.references Rissland, 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-x es_ES
dc.description.references 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. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-0539-5 es_ES
dc.description.references Capobianco, 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/s10458-005-1354-8 es_ES
dc.description.references Tolchinsky 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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)00020-5 es_ES
dc.description.references Aamodt A. 2004. Knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning in Creek. In 7th European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning ECCBR-04, 1–15. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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_7 es_ES
dc.description.references Reed 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Sycara K. 1989. Argumentation: planning other agents’ plans. In 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1, 517–523. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc. es_ES
dc.description.references 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.2007.05.001 es_ES
dc.description.references Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1-2), 81-132. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4 es_ES
dc.description.references Amgoud 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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/s0269888906001044 es_ES
dc.description.references Rahwan 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730 es_ES
dc.description.references Soh 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. doi:10.1515/9783110846089 es_ES
dc.description.references Rissland 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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-w es_ES
dc.description.references Daniels 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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-u es_ES
dc.description.references Hulstijn 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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-v es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem