Advertisement

Argumentation as a Social Computing Paradigm

  • Yuichi Umeda
  • Massashi Yamashita
  • Masanobu Inagaki
  • Hajime Sawamura
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1881)

Abstract

In this paper, we claim that argumentation is a novel and prominent computing principle and provides a unified approach to technologies needed in agent-oriented computing, where social concepts play important roles in computation. Viewed as the reasoning methods of attaining a consensus, they can be roughly classified into three categories: (i) conflict-resolving reasoning, (ii) dialectical reasoning, and (iii) cooperative reasoning. We describe these formally in a unified manner, and build an argument-based agent system with those argument-based reasoning capabilities. Finally, we show its potential usefulness and feasibility in a convincing manner by applying it to a wide variety of the contemporary application domains.

Keywords

argumentation agent dialectics Aufheben compromise concession cooperation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benthem, J. van et al. (eds.): Logic and Argumentation, Proc. of the Colloquium ‘Logic and Argumentation’, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dung, P. M.: An Argumentational Semantics for Logic Programming with Classical Negation, Proc. of Tenth Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, MIT Press, pp. 616–630, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkmans, A. F. S., et al.: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krause, P., Ambler, S., Goransson, M. E. and Fox, J.: A Logic of Argumentation for Reasoning under Uncertainty, Computational Intelligence, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 113–131, 1995.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loui, R. P.: Defeat among Arguments: a System of Defeasible Inference, Computational Intelligence, Vol. 2, pp. 100–106, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Macintosh, D. J. and Conry, S. E. and Meyer, R. A.: Distributed Automated Reasoning: Issues in Coordination, Cooperation, and Performance, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1307–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maeda, S., Guan, C. and Sawamura, H.: An Argument-based Agent System with the Contract Net Protocol, Liu, J. and Zhong, N. (eds.): Intelligent Agent Technology: Systems, Methodologies, and Tools, The World Scientific Publication, pp. 99–103. 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible Reasoning and Decision Support Systems, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 97–110, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parker, J. H.: Social Logics: Their Nature and Uses in Social Research, Cybernetica, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 287–308, 1982.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pollock, J. L..: Defeasible Reasoning, Cognitive Science, Vol. 11, pp. 481–518, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakken, H. and Sartor, G.: Argument-based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities, J. of Applied Non-Classical Logics, Vol. 7, No. 1–2, pp. 25–75, 1997.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rescher, N.: Dialectics-a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge-, State University of New York Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Routley, R. and Meyer, R.: Dialectical Logic, Classical Logic, and the Consistency of the World, Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 16, pp. 1–25, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sawamura, H. and Asanuma, D.: Mechanizing Relevant Logics with HOL, The 11th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs’98), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1479, Springer, pp. 443–460, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sawamura, H., Umeda, Y. and Meyer, R. K.: Computational Dialectics for Argument-based Agent Systems, to be presented at the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgents Systems (ICMAS’ 2000), Boston, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sawamura, H. and Maeda, S.: An Argumentation-Based Model of Multi-Agent Systems, Proc of the 10th European-Japanese Conference on Information Modeling and Knowledge Bases, pp. 96–109, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Umeda, Y. and Sawamura, H.: Towards an Argument-based Agent System, 1999. Proc of 3rd Int. Conf. on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information Engineering Systems, IEEE, 1999, pp. 30–33.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamashita, M., Inagaki, M., Umeda, Y. and Sawamura, H.: Agents Meet Dialectics, 2000. (unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuichi Umeda
    • 1
  • Massashi Yamashita
    • 1
  • Masanobu Inagaki
    • 1
  • Hajime Sawamura
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Information Engineering and Graduate School of Science and EngineeringNiigata UniversityNiigataJapan

Personalised recommendations