Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-v4t4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T18:54:15.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

Stella Heras ,
Vicente Botti  and
Vicente Julián
Stella Heras*
Affiliation:
Information Systems and Computing Department, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
Vicente Botti*
Affiliation:
Information Systems and Computing Department, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
Vicente Julián*
Affiliation:
Information Systems and Computing Department, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
*
e-mail: sheras@dsic.upv.es, vbotti@dsic.upv.es, vinglada@dsic.upv.es
e-mail: sheras@dsic.upv.es, vbotti@dsic.upv.es, vinglada@dsic.upv.es
e-mail: sheras@dsic.upv.es, vbotti@dsic.upv.es, vinglada@dsic.upv.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nowadays, Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are broadening their applications to open environments, where heterogeneous agents could enter into the system, form agents’ organizations and interact. The high dynamism of open MAS gives rise to potential conflicts between agents and thus, to a need for a mechanism to reach agreements. Argumentation is a natural way of harmonizing conflicts of opinion that has been applied to many disciplines, such as Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) and MAS. Some approaches that apply CBR to manage argumentation in MAS have been proposed in the literature. These improve agents’ argumentation skills by allowing them to reason and learn from experiences. In this paper, we have reviewed these approaches and identified the current contributions of the CBR methodology in this area. As a result of this work, we have proposed several open issues that must be taken into consideration to develop a CBR framework that provides the agents of an open MAS with arguing and learning capabilities.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 327 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aamodt, A. 2004. Knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning in Creek. In 7th European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning ECCBR-04, 1–15.Google Scholar
Aamodt, A., Plaza, E. 1994. Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations and system approaches. AI Communications 7(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aleven, V., Ashley, K. D. 1997. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In 8th World Conference of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Society, 87–94.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L. 2003. A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2711, 552–563. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amgoud, L., Kaci, S. 2004. On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In 1st International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3366, 192–207. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armengol, E., Plaza, E. 2001. Lazy induction of descriptions for relational case-based learning. In European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML-01, 13–24.Google Scholar
Ashley, K. D. 1991. Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34, 753–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, K. 2005. A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. Special issue on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aulinas, M., Tolchinsky, P., Turon, C., Poch, M., Cortés, U. 2007. Is my spill environmentally safe? Towards an integrated management of wastewater in a river basin using agents that can argue. In 7th International IWA Symposium on Systems Analysis and Integrated Assessment in Water Management. Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P. 2007. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 619–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branting, L. K. 1991. Building explanations from rules and structured cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6), 797–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brüninghaus, S., Ashley, K. D. 2001. Improving the representation of legal case texts with information extraction methods. In 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-01, 42–51.Google Scholar
Brüninghaus, S., Ashley, K. D. 2003. Predicting the outcome of case-based legal arguments. In 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-03, 233–242.Google Scholar
Brüninghaus, S., Ashley, K. D. 2005. Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts. In 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-05, 65–74.Google Scholar
Bylander, T., Chandrasekaran, B. 1988. Generic Tasks in Knowledge-based Reasoning: The Right Level of Abstraction for Knowledge Acquisition. Academic Press, 1, 65–77.Google Scholar
Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C. I., Simari, G. R. 2005. Argumentation and the dynamics of warranted beliefs in changing environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, J. J., Rissland, E. L. 1997. Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. In 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, 39–47.Google Scholar
Díaz-Agudo, B., González-Calero, P. A. 2007. An ontological approach to develop knowledge intensive CBR systems. In Ontologies: A Handbook of Principles, Concepts and Applications in Information Systems, 173–214. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming, and N-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., Parsons, S. 1998. Arguing about beliefs and actions. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1455, 266–302. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, T. F., Karacapilidis, N. 1997. The Zeno argumentation framework. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, ACM Press, 10–18.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. Methuen.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. 2000. Dialogue Models for Inquiry and Transaction. University of Twente.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L. 2004, Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Argument, Dialogue and Decision. International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 212–218.Google Scholar
Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D. 1999. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-99, ACM Press, 53–62.Google Scholar
Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D. 2001. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision-making: the HERMES system. Information Systems 26(4), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karacapilidis, N., Trousse, B., Papadias, D. 1997. Using case-based reasoning for argumentation with multiple viewpoints. In 2nd International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR-97, 541–552.Google Scholar
Karlins, M., Abelson, H. I. 1970. Persuasion: How Opinions and Attitudes are Changed. Springer.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, J. D. 1978. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Philosophical Logic 8(1), 117–133.Google Scholar
McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S. 2007. The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1), 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBurney, P., Parsons, S. 2002. Dialogue games in multi-agent systems. Informal Logic. Special Issue on Applications of Argumentation in Computer Science 22(3), 257–274.Google Scholar
Modgil, S., Tolchinsky, P., Cortés, U. 2005. Towards formalising agent argumentation over the viability of human organs for transplantation. In 4th Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, MICAI-05, 928–938.Google Scholar
Ontañón, S., Plaza, E. 2006. Arguments and counterexamples in case-based joint deliberation. In AAMAS-06 Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 36–53.Google Scholar
Ontañón, S., Plaza, E. 2007. Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-07, 971–978.Google Scholar
Ossowski, S., Julian, V., Bajo, J., Billhardt, H., Botti, V., Corchado, J. M. 2007. Open issues in open MAS: an abstract architecture proposal. In Conferencia de la Asociacion Española para la Inteligencia Artificial, CAEPIA-07, 2, 151–160.Google Scholar
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N. R. 1998. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Prakken, H., Sartor, G. 1998. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6, 231–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahwan, I. 2006. Argumentation in multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Guest Editorial 11(2), 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L. 2006. An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-06, ACM Press, 347–354.Google Scholar
Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L. 2003. Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4), 343–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, C., Walton, D. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-04, 173–188.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. 1980. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissland, E. L., Ashley, K. D., Branting, L. K. 2006. Case-based reasoning and law. The Knowledge Engineering Review 20(3), 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissland, E. L., Ashley, K. D., Loui, R. 2003. AI and law: a fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence 150(1–2), 1–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B. 1991. CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34, 839–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B., Friedman, M. T. 1993. Bankxx: a program to generate argument through case-based search. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-93, 117–124.Google Scholar
Rittel, H., Webber, M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadri, F., Toni, F., Torroni, P. 2001. Dialogues for negotiation: agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, ATAL-01, Intelligent Agents VIII 2333, 405–421. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simari, G. R., García, A. J., Capobianco, M. 2004. Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 377–384.Google Scholar
Soh, L.-K., Tsatsoulis, C. 2001a. Agent-based argumentative negotiations with case-based reasoning. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, 16–25.Google Scholar
Soh, L.-K., Tsatsoulis, C. 2001b. Reflective negotiating agents for real-time multisensor target tracking. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-01, 1121–1127.Google Scholar
Soh, L.-K., Tsatsoulis, C. 2005. A real-time negotiation model and a multi-agent sensor network implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(3), 215–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørmo, F., Cassens, J., Aamodt, A. 2005. Explanation in case-based reasoning—perspectives and goals. Artificial Intelligence Review 24(2), 109–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sycara, K. 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods, PhD thesis, School of Information and Computer Science. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sycara, K. 1989. Argumentation: planning other agents’ plans. In 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1, 517–523. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Sycara, K. 1990. Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision 28, 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolchinsky, P., Cortés, U., Modgil, S., Caballero, F., López-Navidad, A. 2006c. Increasing human-organ transplant availability: argumentation-based agent deliberation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(6), 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolchinsky, P., Atkinson, K., McBurney, P., Modgil, S., Cortés, U. 2007. Agents deliberating over action proposals using the ProCLAIM model. In 5th International Central and Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, CEEMAS-07, 32–41.Google Scholar
Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Cortés, U. 2006a. Argument schemes and critical questions for heterogeneous agents to argue over the viability of a human organ. In AAAI Spring Symposium Series; Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare, 377–384.Google Scholar
Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Cortés, U., Sànchez-Marrè, M. 2006b. CBR and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA-06, 144, 71–82. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vázquez-Salceda, J., Cortés, U., Padget, J., López-Navidad, A., Caballero, F. 2003. The organ allocation process: a natural extension of the Carrel agent-mediated electronic institution. AI Communications 16(3), 153–165.Google Scholar
Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Studies in Argumentation TheoryLawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Walton, D., Krabbe, E. C. W. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany NY, USA: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Willmott, S., Vreeswijk, G., Chesñevar, C., South, M., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format for multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AAMAS International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 17–34.Google Scholar