Concept Convergence in Empirical Domains

  • Santiago Ontañón
  • Enric Plaza
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6332)

Abstract

How to achieve shared meaning is a significant issue when more than one intelligent agent is involved in the same domain. We define the task of concept convergence, by which intelligent agents can achieve a shared, agreed-upon meaning of a concept (restricted to empirical domains). For this purpose we present a framework that, integrating computational argumentation and inductive concept learning, allows a pair of agents to (1) learn a concept in an empirical domain, (2) argue about the concept’s meaning, and (3) reach a shared agreed-upon concept definition. We apply this framework to marine sponges, a biological domain where the actual definitions of concepts such as orders, families and species are currently open to discussion. An experimental evaluation on marine sponges shows that concept convergence is achieved, within a reasonable number of interchanged arguments, and reaching short and accurate definitions (with respect to precision and recall).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chesñévar, C.I., Simari, G.R., Godo, L.: Computing dialectical trees efficiently in possibilistic defeasible logic programming. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 158–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirsh, H.: Incremental version-space merging: a general framework for concept learning. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology mapping: The state of the art. In: Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M., Sheth, A., Staab, S., Uschold, M. (eds.) Semantic Interoperability and Integration, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Dagstuhl, Germany, vol. 04391 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mozina, M., Zabkar, J., Bratko, I.: Argument based machine learning. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 922–937 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ontañón, S., Dellunde, P., Godo, L., Plaza, E.: Towards a logical model of induction from examples and communication. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Catalan Association for Artificial Intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. IOS Press, Amsterdam (in press, 2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ontañón, S., Plaza, E.: An argumentation-based framework for deliberation in multi-agent systems. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, pp. 178–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ontañón, S., Plaza, E.: Multiagent inductive learning: an argumentation-based approach. In: ICML 2010. Omnipress (2010), http://www.icml2010.org/papers/284.pdf
  8. 8.
    Provost, F.J., Hennessy, D.: Scaling up: Distributed machine learning with cooperation. In: Proc. 13th AAAI Conference, pp. 74–79. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sian, S.S.: Extending learning to multiple agents: Issues and a model for multi-agent machine learning (MA-ML). In: Kodratoff, Y. (ed.) EWSL 1991. LNCS, vol. 482, pp. 440–456. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Santiago Ontañón
    • 1
  • Enric Plaza
    • 1
  1. 1.IIIA, Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, CSIC, Spanish Council for Scientific Research, Campus UABBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations