Advertisement

PISA — Pooling Information from Several Agents: Multiplayer Argumentation from Experience

  • Maya Wardeh
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
  • Frans Coenen

Abstract

In this paper a framework, PISA (Pooling Information from Several Agents), to facilitate multiplayer (three or more protagonists), “argumentation from experience” is described. Multiplayer argumentation is a form of dialogue game involving three or more players. The PISA framework is founded on a two player argumentation framework, PADUA (Protocol for Argumentation Dialogue Using Association Rules), also developed by the authors. One of the main advantages of both PISA and PADUA is that they avoid the resource intensive need to predefine a knowledge base, instead data mining techniques are used to facilitate the provision of “just in time” information. Many of the issues associated with multiplayer dialogue games do not present a significant challenge in the two player game. The main original contributions of this paper are the mechanisms whereby the PISA framework addresses these challenges.

Keywords

Association Rule Player Game Case Base Reasoning Data Mining Technique Belief Base 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal R, Imielinski T, Swami A.N et al (1993). Association rules between sets of items in large databases. In: Proc. of ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, Washington, 207–216.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleven V (1997). Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashley K. D (1990). Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coenen F. P, Leng P, Goulbourne G et al (2004). Tree Structures for Mining Association Rules. In: Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Vol 8, No 1, 25–51.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dignum F and Vreeswijk G.A.W (2003). Towards a test bed for multi-party dialogues. In Advances in Agent Communication, F. Dignum, Ed. Springer Verlag. Berlin, 121–230.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goulbourne G, Coenen F. P, Leng L et al (1999). Algorithms for Computing Association Rules Using a Partial Support Tree. In: Proc. of ES99, Springer, London, UK, 132–147.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olivia, E, Viroli, M, Omicini and McBurney et al (2008). Argumentation and artifact for dialogue support. In Proc. ArgMAS 2008, the 5th Inter Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS 2008, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prakken H (2006). Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. In: The Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wardeh, M, Bench-Capon, T, Coenen, F.P et al (2008). Arguments from Experience: The PADUA Protocol. To appear in Proc. COMMA 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wardeh, M, Bench-Capon, T, Coenen, F.P et al (2007). PADUA Protocol: Strategies and Tactics. In Proc. ECSQARU 2007, 9th European Conf. on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, LNAI 4724: 465–476.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maya Wardeh
    • 1
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  • Frans Coenen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of LiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations