Is It Worth Arguing?

Karunatillake, Nishan C.; Jennings, Nicholas R.

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32261-0_16

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of these works however make the assumption that this approach is beneficial to start with, and study the technical facets of the problem (or instead emphasize other advantages of using argumentation). Notable exceptions are the works of [3,4,2,5], which studied in contexts different from ours the efficiency of argumentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Hypotheses refinement under topological communication constraints

Bourgne

Hette

Maudet

et al. 2007

Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the properties of a multiagent system where each (distributed) agent locally perceives its environment. Upon perception of an unexpected event, each agent locally computes its favoured hypothesis and tries to propagate it to other agents, by exchanging hypotheses and supporting arguments (observations). However, we further assume that communication opportunities are severely constrained and change dynamically. In this paper, we mostly investigate the convergence of such systems towards global consistency. We first show that (for a wide class of protocols that we shall define), the communication constraints induced by the topology will not prevent the convergence of the system, at the condition that the system dynamics guarantees that no agent will ever be isolated forever, and that agents have unlimited time for computation and arguments exchange. As this assumption cannot be made in most situations though, we then set up an experimental framework aiming at comparing the relative efficiency and effectiveness of different interaction protocols for hypotheses exchange. We study a critical situation involving a number of agents aiming at escaping from a burning building. The results reported here provide some insights regarding the design of optimal protocol for hypotheses refinement in this context.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Hypotheses refinement under topological communication constraints

Bourgne

Hette

Maudet

et al. 2007

Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…premises and rules used to derive those proposals) are also communicated. It allows agents to resolve conflicts more efficiently than just exchanging proposals, as proved elsewhere [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

A formal model of persuasion dialogs for interactions among argumentative software agents

Muñoz¹,

Botía²

2009

jopha

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Multi-agent systems (MAS) offer an approach to solve complex problems where data and control are inherently distributed among several agents. Normally, agents have to cope with conflicts based on inconsistent knowledge which arise when they exchange information. A relative common alternative to solve these conflicts is Argumentation. This technique allows agents to develop a coordination process based on the exchange of justifications supporting a piece of knowledge, with the aim of proving its validness. However, most argumentation frameworks are theoretical approaches to this problem. We have developed an Argumentation System Based on Ontologies (ASBO). It follows an engineering-oriented approach to materialize a software architecture which allows working with argumentation in MAS. Moreover, ASBO has also a formal model in the background. This paper introduces such formal model, in order to identify and unambiguously define the core elements that argumentation systems should include.

show abstract

“…The conflict recognition stage, the initial interaction between the agents, brings the conflict to the surface. Subsequently, the diagnosis stage allows the agents to establish the root cause of the conflict and also to decide on how to address it (i.e., whether to avoid the conflict or attempt to manage and resolve it through argumentation and negotiation [7]). Next, the conflict management stage allows the agents to argue and negotiate, thus, addressing the cause of this conflict.…”

Section: Dialogue Propose Accept Reject Challenge Assert and CLmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The argumentation context is based on a simple multi-agent task allocation scenario (similar to that presented in [7]) where a collection of self-interested agents interact to obtain services to achieve a given set of actions. In abstract, the context consists of two main elements.…”

Section: The Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing social influences through argumentation-based negotiation

Karunatillake

Jennings

Rahwan

et al. 2006

Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Social influences play an important part in the actions that an individual agent may perform within a multi-agent society. However, the incomplete knowledge and the diverse and conflicting influences present within such societies, may stop an agent from abiding by all its social influences. This may, in turn, lead to conflicts that the agents need to identify, manage, and resolve in order for the society to behave in a coherent manner. To this end, we present an empirical study of an argumentation-based negotiation (ABN) approach that allows the agents to detect such conflicts, and then manage and resolve them through the use of argumentative dialogues. To test our theory, we map our ABN model to a multi-agent task allocation scenario. Our results show that using an argumentation approach allows agents to both efficiently and effectively manage their social influences even under high degrees of incompleteness. Finally, we show that allowing agents to argue and resolve such conflicts early in the negotiation encounter increases their efficiency in managing social influences.

show abstract

Is It Worth Arguing?

Cited by 24 publications

References 10 publications

Hypotheses refinement under topological communication constraints

Hypotheses refinement under topological communication constraints

A formal model of persuasion dialogs for interactions among argumentative software agents

Managing social influences through argumentation-based negotiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About