Defeasible logic base BDI agent for argumentation

Abstract

In typical SOA, three parties interact with each other in the simple request-reply style by SOAP message which follows inherent drawbacks, for example, lower ratio of successful service-invoking for the simply disposal before the failure of interaction. In this paper, we try to improve the performance of the interaction among the three parties by argumentation skills. We represent the defeasible logic and argumentation technology. The argumentative agent theory (AAl) and abstract architecture (A4) are proposed latter.Meanwhile, we also specify the argumentation situation (AS) and the interaction protocol of argumentative agent. As for application, we discuss the introduction of ArgAgt into SOA so that the interaction among the three parties can be viewed, at a high level, as argumentation-based dialog. The purpose of the paper is to provide a novel ArgAgt for argumentation-based dialog (negotiation) among agents on behalf of individuals or groups with different interests, such as in e-procurem en t, decision making et al.

A systematic review of argumentation techniques for multi-agent systems research

“…Based on the included studies in the review, the most commonly used technique is rulebased inference (Hsairi et al 2006;Gaertner and Toni 2007;Moraitis and Spanoudakis 2007;Yuan et al 2009;Obeid and Moubaiddin 2009;Caiquan et al 2010;Tannai et al 2011;Xiong et al 2012;Harvey et al 2007;Huang and Lin 2010;Janjua and Hussain 2012;Wardeh et al 2012;Rowe et al 2012;van der Weide et al 2011). However, there are other techniques that must not be ignored because they offer other alternatives to reason under uncertainty, such as fuzzy logic Hsairi et al 2010;Chow et al 2013;Wang and Luo 2010;Tao et al 2014;Bedi and Vashisth 2014) Vicari et al 2003), to reason based on similarity, such as CBR Aulinas et al 2012;), or to measure the benefit of a specific action using utility functions (Ge et al 2010).…”

Application of Agent Technology for Fault Diagnosis of Telecommunication Networks

“…Collaborative (Hsairi et al, 2006;Moraitis and Spanoudakis, 2007;Yuan et al, 2009;Obeid and Moubaiddin, 2009;Ge et al, 2010;Hsairi et al, 2010;Ye et al, 2010;Maio et al, 2011;Zhang et al, 2012;El-Sisi and Mousa, 2012;Aulinas et al, 2012;Chow et al, 2013;Grando et al, 2012;Harvey et al, 2007;Marreiros et al, 2005;Rowe et al, 2012;Velaga et al, 2012;Letia and Groza, 2012;Amgoud and Serrurier, 2008;Monteserin and Amandi, 2011;Das, 2005;Bulling et al, 2008;Amgoud and Serrurier, 2007;Huang and Lin, 2010;Janjua and Hussain, 2012;Tao et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2014;Kakas and Moraitis, 2003;Fogli et al, 2013;Fan et al, 2014;Bedi and Vashisth, 2014;Ferrando and Onaindia, 2013;Maio and Silva, 2014;Vicari et al, 2003;Tang and Parsons, 2005;Morge and Beaune, 2004) Competitive (Yuan et al, 2011;Keppens, 2011;Heras et al, 2013b,a;Brandao Neto et al, 2013;…”

“…Thus, the argumentation framework must be compatible with that reasoning process of the agent. (Yuan et al, 2009;Wang and Luo, 2010;Caiquan et al, 2010;Ge et al, 2010;Hsairi et al, 2006Hsairi et al, , 2010Obeid and Moubaiddin, 2009;Yuan et al, 2011;Maio et al, 2011;Das, 2005;van der Weide et al, 2011;Bulling et al, 2008;Amgoud and Serrurier, 2007;Keppens, 2011;Rowe et al, 2012;Gaertner and Toni, 2008;Vreeswijk, 2005;Amgoud and Serrurier, 2008;Brandao Neto et al, 2013;Tao et al, 2014;Amgoud et al, 2000;Kakas and Moraitis, 2003;dAvila Garcez et al, 2014;Sierra et al, 1998;Fan et al, 2013;Amgoud and Parsons, 2002;Amgoud and Prade, 2009;Amgoud et al, 2005;Amgoud, 2006;Tang and Parsons, 2005;Morge and Beaune, 2004;Alonso, 2004) Prototype 22 (Moraitis and Spanoudakis, 2007;Ye et al, 2010;Monteserin and Amandi, 2011;Heras et al, 2013b;Huang and Lin, 2010;Janjua and Hussain, 2012;Xiong et al, 2012;…”