Opportunistic belief reconciliation during distributed interactions
Pages 433 - 440
Abstract
Successful interaction between autonomous agents is contingent on those agents making decisions consistent with the expectations of their peers --- these expectations are based on their beliefs about the current state of the environment in which interaction occurs. Contradictory beliefs lead to unintended and often unjustified outcomes. Given a shared interaction protocol to which all agents agree to adhere, it is possible to identify the constraints upon which the outcome of an interaction rests as it unfolds, and so prior to resolving those constraints, agents can compare and reconcile any relevant expectations by a process of argumentation.
In this paper, we introduce a mechanism by which agents can efficiently articulate their current beliefs in order to influence the resolution by their peers of constraints imposed on a distributed interaction and thus influence its outcome. We understand this as an opportunistic process of belief synchronisation within a restricted argument space, such that all decisions can be said to be admissible given the information that it is practical for agents to share with one another. Thus, we use the distributed knowledge dispersed amongst an agent group to make better decisions in interaction without resorting to more complex, domain-specific protocols.
References
[1]
A. Bondarenko, F. Toni, and R. Kowalski. An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pages 171--189, 1993.
[2]
M. Caminada. Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: Ideal and eager. In Proceedings of the 19th Belgian-Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 81--87, 2007.
[3]
P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321--357, 1995.
[4]
P. M. Dung, P. Mancarella, and F. Toni. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10--15):642--674, July--October 2007.
[5]
A. C. Kakas, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. The role of adbuction in logic programming. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, 5:235--324, 1998.
[6]
A. C. Kakas and F. Toni. Computing argumentation in logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9:515--562, 1999.
[7]
I. Lakatos. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, editors, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pages 91--195. Cambridge University Press, 1970.
[8]
H. Prakken. From logic to dialectics in legal argument. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 165--174, 1995.
[9]
I. Rahwan and K. Larson. Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2008.
[10]
I. Rahwan, S. D. Ramchurn, N. R. Jennings, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and L. Sonenberg. Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4):343--375, 2003.
[11]
D. Robertson. Multi-agent coordination as distributed logic programming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming, 2004.
[12]
D. Robertson, C. Walton, A. Barker, P. Besana, Y. H. Chen-Burger, F. Hassan, D. Lambert, G. Li, J. McGinnis, N. Osman, A. Bundy, F. McNeill, F. van Harmelen, C. Sierra, and F. Giunchiglia. Models of interaction as a grounding for peer to peer knowledge sharing. LNCS Advances in Web Semantics, 1, 2008.
[13]
R. Siebes, D. Dupplaw, S. Kotoulas, A. P. de Pinnick, F. van Harmelen, and D. Robertson. The openknowledge system: An interaction-centered approach to knowledge sharing. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conferece on Cooperative Information Systems, 2007.
[14]
M. P. Singh. Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles. Computer, 21:40--47, December 1998.
[15]
G. A. W. Vreeswijk and H. Prakken. Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence, pages 239--253, 2000.
Index Terms
- Opportunistic belief reconciliation during distributed interactions
Recommendations
Argumentation-based multi-agent distributed reasoning in dynamic and open environments
AbstractThis work presents an approach for distributed and contextualized reasoning in multi-agent systems, considering environments in which agents may have incomplete, uncertain and inconsistent knowledge. Knowledge is represented by defeasible logic ...
Graded Reinstatement in Belief Revision
WI-IAT '11: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Volume 02An important issue in belief revision is the possible loss of previous information which later might turn to be correct when new information becomes available to the agent. Starting from the fuzzy argument labeling based on trust, we mirror argument ...
An architecture for defeasible-reasoning-based cooperative distributed planning
OTM'11: Proceedings of the 2011th Confederated international conference on On the move to meaningful internet systems - Volume Part ICooperation plays a fundamental role in distributed planning, in which a team of distributed intelligent agents with diverse preferences, abilities and beliefs must cooperate during the planning process to achieve a set of common goals. This paper ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Sponsors
- IFAAMAS
In-Cooperation
Publisher
International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
Richland, SC
Publication History
Published: 10 May 2010
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
AAMAS '10
Sponsor:
AAMAS '10: The Ninth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
May 10 - 14, 2010
Toronto, Canada
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 59Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)2
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 26 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in