Coherence-driven argumentation to norm consensus

ABSTRACT

In this paper coherence-based models are proposed as an alternative to logic-based BDI and argumentation models for the reasoning of normative agents. A model is provided for how two coherence-based agents can deliberate on how to regulate a domain of interest. First a deductive coherence model presented, in which the coherence values are derived from the deduction relation of an underlying logic; this makes it possible to identify the reasons for why a proposition is accepted or rejected. Then it is shown how coherence-driven agents can generate candidate norms for deliberation, after which a dialogue protocol for such deliberations is proposed. The resulting model is compared to current logic-based argumentation systems for deliberation over action.

REFERENCES

• 1: A. Amaya. Inference to the best legal explanation. In H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, editors, Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, 2009.
• 2: L. Amgoud and H. Prade. Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence, 34: 197--216, 2009.
• 3: K. Atkinson. What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, 2005.
• 4: Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon , Henry Prakken, Justifying Actions by Accruing Arguments, Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, p.247-258, May 25, 2006
• 5: T. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. A quantitative approach to theory coherence. In B. Verheij, A. Lodder, R. Loui, and A. Muntjewerff, editors, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2001: The Fourteenth Annual Conference, pages 53--62, Amsterdam etc, 2001. IOS Press.
• 6: J. Broersen, M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn, and L. van der Torre. Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly Journal, 2: 428--447, 2002.
• 7: A. Casali, L. Godo, and C. Sierra. Graded BDI models for agent architectures. In Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA V), volume 3487 of LNAI, pages 126--143, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2005. Springer.
• 8: Rosaria Conte , Cristiano Castelfranchi , Frank Dignum, Autonomous Norm Acceptance, Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents V, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, p.99-112, July 04-07, 1998
• 9: Pilar Dellunde , Lluís Godo, Introducing Grades in Deontic Logics, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, p.248-262, July 15-18, 2008, Luxembourg, Luxembourg [doi>10.1007/978-3-540-70525-3_19]
• 10: Phan Minh Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, v.77 n.2, p.321-357, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
• 11: Fausto Giunchiglia , Luciano Serafini, Multilanguage hierarchical logics, or: how we can do without modal logics, Artificial Intelligence, v.65 n.1, p.29-70, Jan. 1994 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)90037-X]
• 12: Thomas F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.2 n.4, p.239-292, 1993/1994 [doi>10.1007/BF00871972]
• 13: S. Joseph, C. Sierra, and M. Schorlemmer. A coherence based framework for institutional agents. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems III, volume 4870 of LNCS, pages 287--300, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2008. Springer.
• 14: S. Joseph, C. Sierra, M. Schorlemmer, and P. Dellunde. Formalising deductive coherence: An application to norm evaluation. In Normas'08(Extended version), Technical Report(RR-IIIA-2008-02), 2009. http://www.iiia.csic.es/sierra/papers/2009/Coherence.pdf.
• 15: R. Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14: 1--38, 1998.
• 16: Philippe Pasquier , Brahim Chaib-draa, The cognitive coherence approach for agent communication pragmatics, Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, July 14-18, 2003, Melbourne, Australia [doi>10.1145/860575.860662]
• 17: Philippe Pasquier , Iyad Rahwan , Frank Dignum , Liz Sonenberg, Argumentation and Persuasion in the Cognitive Coherence Theory, Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, p.223-234, May 25, 2006
• 18: Henry Prakken, A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 06-11, 2005, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/1165485.1165500]
• 19: Iyad Rahwan , Sarvapali D. Ramchurn , Nicholas R. Jennings , Peter Mcburney , Simon Parsons , Liz Sonenberg, Argumentation-based negotiation, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.18 n.4, p.343-375, December 2003 [doi>DOI:10.1017/S0269888904000098]
• 20: A. S. Rao and M. Georgeff. BDI agents: From theory to practice. In ICMAS--95, First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems: Proceedings, pages 312--319, S. Francisco, CA, 1995. MIT Press.
• 21: P. Thagard. Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press, 2002.
• 22: P. Thagard. Causal inference in legal decision making: Explanatory coherence vs. Bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18: 231--249, 2004.
• 23: D. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1996.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence
            Subjects: Intelligent agents
      I.2.4 Knowledge Representation Formalisms and Methods

General Terms:
Algorithms, Legal Aspects

Keywords:
argumentation, deductive coherence, norm deliberation, normative agents