A Dialectic Architecture for Computational Autonomy

  • Mark Witkowski
  • Kostas Stathis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2969)

Abstract

This paper takes the view that to be considered autonomous, a software agent must possess the means by which to manage its own motivations and so arbitrate between competing internal goals. Using the motivational theories of Abraham Maslow as a starting point, we investigate the role that argumentation processes might play in balancing the many competing aspects of a whole agent’s motivational agenda. This is developed into an Agent Argumentation Architecture (AAA) in which multiple “faculties” argue for different aspects of the total behavior of the Agent. The overall effect of these internal arguments then defines which actions the agent will select for expression, and so define the overt and observable “personality” of the agent.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beavers, G., Hexmoor, H.: Types and Limits of Agent Autonomy. In: Rovatsos, M., Nickles, M. (eds.) Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Computational Autonomy – Potential, Risks and Solutions, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1–9 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bratman, M.E.: Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks, R.: Intelligence without Representation. Artificial Intelligence 47, 139–159 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carabelea, C., Boissier, O., Florea, A.: Autonomy in Multi-agent Systems: A Classification Attempt. In: Rovatsos, M., Nickles, M. (eds.) Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Computational Autonomy – Potential, Risks and Solutions, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne,Australia, pp. 11–21 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cotterill, R.: Enchanted Looms Conscious Networks in Brains and Computers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.M.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and N-person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eysenck, H.: Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5 or 3? Criteria for a Taxonomic Paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences 12(8), 773–790 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jennings, N.R., Sycara, K.P., Wooldridge, M.: A Roadmap of Agent Research and Development. J. of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1(1), 7–36 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    John, O.P.: The “Big Five” Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Natural Language and in Questionnaires. In: Pervin, L.A. (ed.) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, pp. 66–100. Guildford, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kakas, A., Moraïtis, P.: Argumentation Based Decision Making for Autonomous Agents. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), p. 3 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: The role of abduction in logic programming. In: Gabbay, D.M., et al. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 235–324. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence and Law Journal 4(3-4), 275–296 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: A Formal Framework for Agency and Autonomy. In: Proc. 1st Int. Conf. On Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS), pp. 254–260 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: Autonomy: A Nice Idea in Theory. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, p. 351. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maes, P.: Agents that Reduce Work and Information Overload. Communications of the ACM 37(7), 31–40 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maslow, A.H.: Motivation and Personality. In: Frager, R., et al. (eds.), 3rd edn., Harper and Row, New York (1987) (first published 1954)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mele, A.R.: Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minsky, M.: Society of Mind. Simon and Schuster, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morignot, P., Hayes-Roth, B.: Motivated Agents, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Dept. Computer Science, Stanford University, Report KSL 96–22 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moutafakis, N.J.: The Logics of Preference: A Study of Prohairetic Logics in Twentieth Century Philosophy. D. Reidel Publishing Co (1987)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norman, T.J., Long, D.: Goal Creation in Motivated Agents. In: Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R. (eds.) Intelligent Agents: Theories, Architectures, and Languages. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 890, pp. 277–290. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prakken, H.: Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Critical Survey. In: Kakas, A., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: From Logic programming into the Future (In Honour of Bob Kowalski). LNCS, vol. 2048, pp. 342–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling Rational Agents within a BDIArchitecture. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge, Representation and Reasoning, KR 1991, pp. 473–484 (1991)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Revelle, W.: Personality Processes. The 1995 Annual Review of Psychology (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stathis, K.: A Game-based Architecture for Developing Interactive Components in Computational Logic. Journal of Functional and Logic Programming 2000(1)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stathis, K., de Bruijn, O., Macedo, S.: Living Memory: Agent-based Information Management for Connected Local Communities. Journal of Interacting with Computers 14(6), 665–690 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Steels, L.: When are Robots Intelligent Autonomous Agents? Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems 15, 3–9 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Von Wright, G.H.: The Logic of Preference: An Essay. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (1963)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wiener, N.: Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press, Cambridge (1948)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Witkowski, M.: Schemes for Learning and Behaviour: A New Expectancy Model, Ph.D. thesis, University of London (1997)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Witkowski, M., Artikis, A., Pitt, J.: Experiments in Building Experiential Trust in a Society of Objective-Trust Based Agents. In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) Trust in Cyber-societies. LNCS, vol. 2246, pp. 111–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Witkowski, M., Neville, B., Pitt, J.: Agent Mediated Retailing in the Connected Local Community. Journal of Interacting with Computers 15(1), 5–33 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Witkowski
    • 1
  • Kostas Stathis
    • 2
  1. 1.Intelligent and Interactive Systems Group, Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringImperial CollegeLondonU.K.
  2. 2.Intelligent Computing Environments, Department of Computing, School of InformaticsCity UniversityLondonU.K.

Personalised recommendations