Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an argumentation based framework to support the decision making of an agent within a modular architecture for agents. The proposed argumentation framework is dynamic, with arguments and their strength depending on the particular context that the agent finds himself, thus allowing the agent to adapt his decisions in a changing environment. In addition, in order to enable the agent to operate within an open environment where the available information may be incomplete we have integrated abduction within this argumentation framework. This is particular useful when the agent finds himself in a dilemma and hence needs additional information to resolve this. We have also developed, motivated by work in Cognitive Psychology, within the same framework an argumentation based personality theory for agents thus incorporating a dimension of individuality in the decisions of the agent.

REFERENCES

• 1: Modeling Dialogues Using Argumentation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000), p.31, July 10-12, 2000
• 2: Leila Amgoud , Simon Parsons, Agent Dialogues with Conflicting Preferences, Revised Papers from the 8th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VIII, p.190-205, August 01-03, 2001
• 3: A. Bondarenko , P. M. Dung , R. A. Kowalski , F. Toni, An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, v.93 n.1-2, p.63-101, June 1997 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5]
• 4: C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In KR94, 1994.
• 5: G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation process based on situation calculus. In Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2), pp. 257-282, 2001.
• 6: Y. Dimopoulos and A. C. Kakas. Logic programming without negation as failure. ILPS'95, pp. 369--384, 1995.
• 7: J. Doyle and M. Wellman. Representing preferences as ceteris paribus comparatives. In Working Notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Decision-Theoretic Planning, 1994.
• 8: 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]
• 9: V. Ha. Preference Logics for Automated Decision Making. http://www.cs.uwm.edu/public/vu/papers/qdtsurvey.pdf.
• 10: Great Ideas in Personality. Five-Factor Model. www.personalityresearch.org/bigfive.html, 2002.
• 11: A. C. Kakas , P. Mancarella , Phan Minh Dung, The acceptability semantics for logic programs, Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Logic programming, p.504-519, August 1994
• 12: A.C. Kakas, R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni. Abductive logic programming. In Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(6), pp. 719--770, 1992.
• 13: A. C. Kakas and P. Moraitis. Argumentative Agent Deliberation, Roles and Context. In Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA02), 2002.
• 14: N. Karacapilidis and P. Moraitis. Engineering issues in inter-agent dialogues. In ECAI02, Lyon, France, 2002.
• 15: J.A. Leite. Evolving Knowledge Bases. IOS Press, 2003.
• 16: A. Maslow. Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row, New York, 1954.
• 17: P. Morignot and B. Hayes-Roth. Adaptable motivational profiles for autonomous agents. Knowledge Systems Laboratory, TR KSL 95-01, Stanford University, 1995.
• 18: S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N.R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguying. In Logic and Computation 8 (3), 261--292, 1998.
• 19: H. Prakken. Logical Tools for Modeling Legal Reasoning: A study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law, Kluwer, 1997.
• 20: H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. In Artficial Intelligence and Law Vol 4, pp. 331--368, 1996.
• 21: J. Sabater, C. Sierra, S. Parsons, and N.R. Jennings. Engineering executable agents using multi-context systems. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12, 2002.
• 22: Carles Sierra , Nicholas R. Jennings , Pablo Noriega , Simon Parsons, A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents IV, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, p.177-192, July 24-26, 1997
• 23: K. Sycara. Argumentation: Planning other agents' plans. In IJCAI-89, pp. 517--523, 1989.
• 24: Sek-Wah Tan , Judea Pearl, Qualitative decision theory, Proceedings of the twelfth national conference on Artificial intelligence (vol. 2), p.928-933, October 1994, Seattle, Washington, United States
• 25: P. Vincke Multi-criteria Decision Aid. John Wiley, 1992.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence
            Subjects: Intelligent agents

General Terms:
Theory

Keywords:
agents, argumentation, decision making