Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/1568234.1568242acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Coherence-driven argumentation to norm consensus

Published: 08 June 2009 Publication History

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]
]]T. Bench-Capon and H. Prakken. Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In P. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pages 247--258, Amsterdam etc, 2006. IOS Press.
[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]
]]R. Conte, C. Castelfranchi, and F. Dignum. Autonomous norm acceptance. In ATAL '98: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents V, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, volume 1555 of LNCS, pages 99--112, Berlin/Heidelberg, 1999. Springer.
[9]
]]P. Dellunde and L. Godo. Introducing grades in deontic logics. In DEON '08: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, volume 5076 of LNAI, pages 248--262, berlin/Heidelberg, 2008. Springer.
[10]
]]P. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n--person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77: 321--357, 1995.
[11]
]]F. Giunchiglia and L. Serafini. Multilanguage hierarchical logics, or: how we can do without modal logics. Artificial Intelligence, 65: 29--70, 1994.
[12]
]]T. Gordon. The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2: 239--292, 1994.
[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]
]]P. Pasquier and B. Chaib-draa. The cognitive coherence approach for agent communication pragmatics. In AAMAS '03: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pages 544--551. ACM, 2003.
[17]
]]P. Pasquier, I. Rahwan, F. Dignum, and L. Sonenberg. Argumentation and persuasion in the cognitive coherence theory. In P. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pages 223--234, Amsterdam etc, 2006. IOS Press.
[18]
]]H. Prakken. A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 85--94, New York, 2005. ACM Press.
[19]
]]I. Rahwan, S. Ramchurn, N. Jennings, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and L. Sonenberg. Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18: 343--375, 2003.
[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.

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)Coherence and Systematization in LawHandbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation10.1007/978-90-481-9452-0_22(637-672)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2018
  • (2017)Some Theoretical Results on the Relationship Between Argumentation and Coherence TheoryMulti-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_45(565-579)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2017
  • (2016)Extensions and modifications to explanatory coherenceLaw, Probability and Risk10.1093/lpr/mgw00515:3(199-221)Online publication date: 29-Jul-2016
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICAIL '09: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
June 2009
244 pages
ISBN:9781605585970
DOI:10.1145/1568234
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 June 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. argumentation
  2. deductive coherence
  3. norm deliberation
  4. normative agents

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ICAIL '09

Acceptance Rates

ICAIL '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 22 of 58 submissions, 38%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)Coherence and Systematization in LawHandbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation10.1007/978-90-481-9452-0_22(637-672)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2018
  • (2017)Some Theoretical Results on the Relationship Between Argumentation and Coherence TheoryMulti-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_45(565-579)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2017
  • (2016)Extensions and modifications to explanatory coherenceLaw, Probability and Risk10.1093/lpr/mgw00515:3(199-221)Online publication date: 29-Jul-2016
  • (2015)The role of evaluation in AI and lawProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/2746090.2746116(181-186)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2015
  • (2013)The significance of evaluation in AI and lawProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/2514601.2514624(186-191)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2013
  • (2013)Limits of Constraint Satisfaction Theory of Coherence as a Theory of (Legal) ReasoningCoherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-94-007-6110-0_12(217-241)Online publication date: 8-Mar-2013
  • (2013)Three Kinds of CoherentismCoherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-94-007-6110-0_1(1-32)Online publication date: 8-Mar-2013
  • (2011)Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence*Ratio Juris10.1111/j.1467-9337.2011.00486.x24:3(304-329)Online publication date: 8-Aug-2011
  • (2011)Argumentation Without ArgumentsArgumentation10.1007/s10503-011-9208-925:2(171-184)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2011
  • (2011)Coherence-Based account of the doctrine of consistent interpretationProceedings of the 25th IVR Congress conference on AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems: models and ethical challenges for legal systems, legal language and legal ontologies, argumentation and software agents10.1007/978-3-642-35731-2_2(33-47)Online publication date: 15-Aug-2011
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media