Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
One of the most difficult problems in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) involves representing the knowledge and beliefs of an agent which performs its tasks in a dynamic environment. New perceptions modify this agent’s current knowledge about the world, and consequently its beliefs about it also change. Such a revision and update process should be performed efficiently by the agent, particularly in the context of real-time constraints. In the last decade argumentation has evolved as a successful approach to formalize defeasible, commonsense reasoning, gaining wide acceptance in the MAS community by providing tools for designing and implementing features, which characterize reasoning capabilities in rational agents. In this paper we present a new argument-based formalism specifically designed for representing knowledge and beliefs of agents in dynamic environments, called Observation-based Defeasible Logic Programming (ODeLP). A simple but effective perception mechanism allows an ODeLP-based agent to model new incoming perceptions, and modify the agent’s knowledge about the world accordingly. In addition, in order to improve the reactive capabilities of ODeLP-based agents, the process of computing beliefs in a changing environment is made computationally attractive by integrating a “dialectical database” with the agent’s program, providing pre-compiled information about previous inferences. We present algorithms for managing dialectical databases as well as examples of their use in the context of real-world problems.
- M. J. Wooldridge, Introduction to Multiagent Systems. Wiley, 2002.
- Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A., Loui, R. (2000) “Logical models of argument,” ACM Comput. Surv., Vol 32: pp. 337-383
- H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk, “Logical systems for defeasible argumentation,” in D. Gabbay, (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 4, Kluwer Academic Publisher: Dordrecht 2002, pp. 219–318.
- M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, “Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases,” New Generation Comput., pp. 365–385, 1991.
- García, A., Simari, G. (2004) “Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach.”. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4: pp. 95-138 CrossRef
- Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D. (1985) “ On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions.”. Symbolic Logic J 50: pp. 510-530
- H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon, “On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it,” in P. Gardenfors (ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 183–203.
- Gäardenfors, P. (1998) Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Bradford Books, Cambridge MA
- J. L. Pollock, “Taking perception seriously,” in: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agent, 1997, pp. 526–527.
- Doyle, J. (1979) “A truth maintenance system.”. Artif, Intell 12: pp. 231-272
- Kleer, J. (1986) “An assumption-based TMS.”. Artif, Intell 28: pp. 127-162
- Kleer, J. “A comparison of ATMS and CSP techniques.”. In: Sridharan, N. S. eds. (1989) Proceedings of the 11th IJCAI. Workshop on Practical Reasoning and Rationality, Detroit, USA, pp. 290-296
- Elkan, C. (1990) “A rational reconstruction of nonmonotonic truth maintenance systems.”. Artif, Intell 43: pp. 219-234
- D. McAllester, “Truth maintenance,” in R. Smith and T. Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 2., American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, 1990, pp. 1109–1116.
- Forbus, K., Kleer, J. (1993)) Building Problem Solvers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
- A. L. Brown,“Modal propositional semantics for reason maintenance systems,” in: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1985, pp. 178–183.
- Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R. (2000) “Logical models of argument”. ACM Comput Surv 32: pp. 337-383 CrossRef
- C. Reed and T. E. Norman, Argumentation Machines – New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, vol. 9 of Series Argumentation Library, Springer, 2005.
- Prakken, H., Sartor, G. (1997) “Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities”. Appl, Non-classical Logics 7: pp. 25-752
- Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L. (2003) “ Argumentation-based negotiation”. Knowl. Eng. Rev 18: pp. 343-375 CrossRef
- Carbogim, D., Robertson, D., Lee, J. (2000) “Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering”. Knowl. Eng. Rev 15: pp. 119-149 CrossRef
- C. I. Chesñevar, G. Simari, T. Alsinet and L. Godo,“A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation with vague knowledge,” in: Proceedings of the International Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2004), Canada, 2004, pp. 76–84.
- C. I. Chesñevar, G. Simari, T. Alsinet, and L. Godo, “Modelling agent reasoning in a logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation,” in: Proceedings of the 2nd European Workshop on Multiagent Systems. Barcelona, Spain, 2004, pp. 135–142.
- Simari, G.R., Loui R., P. (1992) “A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation”. Artif Intell 53: pp. 125-157 CrossRef
- J. W. Lloyd, Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer–Verlag, 1987.
- D. L. Poole, “On the comparison of theories: preferring the most specific explanation,” in: Proceedings of the 9th IJCAIs, 1985, pp. 144–147.
- Capobianco, M. (2003) “Argumentación rebatible en entornos dinámicos”. Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca Argentina
- G. R. Simari, C. I. Chesñevar, and A. J. García, “The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation,” in: Proceedings of the XIV Conferencia Internacional de la Sociedad Chilena para Ciencias de la Computación, 1994, pp. 111–121.
- Chesñevar, C., Dix, J., Stolzenburg, F., Simari, G. (2003) “Relating defeasible and normal logic programming through transformation properties”. Theor Comput Sci 290: pp. 499-529 CrossRef
- J. J. Alferes and L. M. Pereira, “On logic program semantics with two kinds of negation,” in: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, USA, 1992, pp. 574–588.
- C. Chesñevar and G. R. Simari, “Distinguishing ground from nonground information in defeasible argumentation,” in: Proceedings del I Congreso Argentino en Ciencias de la Computación, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina, 1995, pp. 527–538.
- A. J. García, C. I. Chesñevar, and G. R. Simari,“ Making argumentative systems computationally attractive,” in: XIII International Conference of the Chilenean Computer Science Society, 1993, pp. 335–344.
- C. Baral and M. Gelfond, “Reasoning agents in dynamic domains,” in: J. Minker, (ed.), Workshop on Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, College Park, Maryland, Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, 1999.
- L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol,“On the use of an atms for handling conflicting desires,” in: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (KR2004), 2004, pp. 194–202.
- Phan Minh, Dung. (1995) “On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games”. Artif. Intell 77: pp. 321-358 CrossRef
- Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Volume 11, Issue 2 , pp 127-151
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- logic programming
- defeasible logic programming
- multi-agent systems
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Av. Alem 1253, 8000, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
- 2. Departament of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence Research Group, Universitat de Lleida, C/Jaume II, 69, E-25001, Lleida, Spain