Argumentative Agents for Service-Oriented Computing

  • M. Morge
  • J. McGinnis
  • S. Bromuri
  • P. Mancarella
  • K. Stathis
  • F. Toni
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 45)


We propose an argumentation-based agent model that supports service and partner selection in service-oriented computing settings. In this model, argumentation is also used to help agents resolve conflicts between themselves, whenever negotiation is required for the provision of complex services. The model relies upon an argumentation framework that is used in a modular architecture where Knowledge, Goals, Decisions and Priorities are manipulated by three specialized modules dealing with decision making, communication and negotiation.We formulate a distributed e-procurement process to illustrate how our agents select services and partners and can negotiate with one another.


Multiagent System Service Selection Composite Service Argumentation Framework Concrete Service 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L.: A general argumentation framework for inference and decision making. In: Fahiem Bacchus, T.J. (ed.) Proc. of the 21st Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), pp. 26–33. AUAI Press, Edinburgh (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proc. 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 963–970 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Comparing decisions in an argumentation-based setting. In: Proc. of the 11th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR), Session on Argumentation, Dialogue, and Decision Making, Lake District, UK, pp. 426–432 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In: Proc. of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Boston, pp. 16–20 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: Reasoning about interaction protocols for web service composition. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 105, 21–36 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: Reasoning about interaction protocols for customizing web service selection and composition. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 70(1), 53–73 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H.: Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In: Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 247–258. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bentahar, J., Maamar, Z., Benslimane, D., Thiran, P.: An argumentation framework for communities of web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(6), 75–83 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bracciali, A., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Kakas, A., Lu, W., Stathis, K.: Crafting the mind of PROSOCS agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence 20(2-4), 105–131 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bromuri, S., Stathis, K.: Situating cognitive agents in GOLEM. In: Weyns, D., Brueckner, S., Demazeau, Y. (eds.) Proc. of the Engineering Environment-Mediated Multiagent Systems Conference (EEMMAS), pp. 76–93. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bromuri, S., Stathis, K.: Distributed Agent Environments in the Ambient Event Calculus. In: DEBS 2009: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, W., Warren, D.S.: C-logic of Complex Objects. In: PODS 1989: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 369–378. ACM Press, New York (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clemen, R.T.: Making Hard Decisions. Duxbury Press (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen, M., Stathis, K.: Strategic change stemming from e-commerce: Implications of multi-agent systems in the supply chain. Strategic Change 10, 139–149 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Curcin, V., Ghanem, M., Guo, Y., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: Building next generation Service-Oriented Architectures using Argumentation Agents. In: 3rd International Conference on Grid Services Engineering and Management (GSEM 2006), Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G., Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL web ontology language reference. Tech. rep., W3C (2004),
  17. 17.
    Sierra, C., Dignum, F. (eds.): AgentLink 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1991. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114–159 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bellifemine, F.L., Giovanni Caire, Greenwood, D.: Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE. Wiley (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Foster, I.T., Jennings, N.R., Kesselman, C.: Brain meets brawn: Why grid and agents need each other. In: 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 8–15. IEEE Computer Society, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gartner, D., Toni, F.: CaSAPI: a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation. In: Simari, G., Torroni, P. (eds.) Proc. of the Workshop on Argumentation for Non-monotonic Reasoning (ArgNMR), pp. 80–95 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ghanem, M., Azam, N., Boniface, M., Ferris, J.: Grid-enabled workflows for industrial product design. In: Proc. of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (e-Science 2006). IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pp. 48–57. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Howden, N., Ronnquist, R., Hodgson, A., Lucas, A.: Jack - summary of an agent infrastructure. In: 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P.: Service-oriented computing: Key concepts and principles. IEEE Internet Computing 9(1), 75–81 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P., Burstein, M.H., Decker, K.S., Durfee, E.H., Finin, T.W., Gasser, L., Goradia, H.J., Jennings, N.R., Lakkaraju, K., Nakashima, H., Parunak, H.V.D., Rosenschein, J.S., Ruvinsky, A., Sukthankar, G., Swarup, S., Sycara, K.P., Tambe, M., Wagner, T., Gutierrez, R.L.Z.: Research directions for service-oriented multiagent systems. IEEE Internet Computing 9(6), 65–70 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentative-based decision-making for autonomous agents. In: Proc. of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 883–890. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation. In: Proc. 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), Hakodate, Japan, pp. 384–391 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency. In: Proc. of ECAI, pp. 33–37 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: Declarative Agent Control. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3487, pp. 96–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: Computational logic foundations of kgp agents. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 33, 285–348 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., Sergot, M.J., Solanki, M.: Verifying Temporal and Epistemic Properties of Web Service Compositions. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 456–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lymberopoulos, L., Bromuri, S., Stathis, K., Kafetzoglou, S., Grammatikou, M.: Towards a p2p discovery framework for an argumentative agent technology assisted grid. In: Proc. of the CoreGRID Workshop on Grid Programming Model, Grid and P2P systems Arhcitectures, Grid Systems, Tools, and Environments, Crete, Greece (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lymberopoulos, L., Papavassiliou, S., Maglaris, V.: A novel load balancing mechanism for P2P networking. In: Proc. of ACM Sponsored Conference GridNets, Lyon, France (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mamdani, E., Pitt, J., Stathis, K.: Connected Communities from the standpoint of Multi-agent Systems. New Generation Computing 17(4) (1999)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Maximilien, E.M., Singh, M.P.: A framework and ontology for dynamic web services selection. IEEE Internet Computing 8(5), 84–93 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maximilien, E.M., Singh, M.P.: Toward autonomic web services trust and selection. In: Aiello, M., Aoyama, M., Curbera, F., Papazoglou, M.P. (eds.) Service-Oriented Computing - ICSOC 2004, pp. 212–221. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    McBurmey, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11(3), 315–334 (2002), Special Issue on Logic and GamesGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McGinnis, J., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: A formal model of agent-oriented virtual organisations and their formation. Multiagent and Grid Systems 7(6), 291–310 (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    McIlraith, S.A., Son, T.C.: Adapting golog for composition of semantic web services. In: Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D.L., Williams, M.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles and Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), pp. 482–496. Morgan Kaufmann, France (2002)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    McIlraith, S.A., Son, T.C., Zeng, H.: Semantic web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 46–53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miller, T., McBurney, P.: Using Constraints and Process Algebra for Specification of First-Class Agent Interaction Protocols. In: O’Hare, G.M.P., Ricci, A., O’Grady, M.J., Dikenelli, O. (eds.) ESAW 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4457, pp. 245–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morge, M.: The Hedgehog and the Fox. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, pp. 114–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Morge, M.: Arguing over goals for negotiation: Adopting an assumption-based argumentation decision support system. In: Jao, C. (ed.) Efficient Decision Support Systems - Practice and Challenges From Current to Future, ch. 12, pp. 211–240. InTech (2011)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Oren, N., Panagiotidi, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Modgil, S., Luck, M., Miles, S.: Towards a formalisation of electronic contracting environments. In: COIN@AAMAS&AAAI, pp. 156–171 (2008)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., Tsoukias, A.: Arguing over Actions That Involve Multiple Criteria: A Critical Review. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 308–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Overeinder, B.J., Brazier, F.M.T., Marin, O.: Fault tolerance in scalable agent support systems: Integrating darx in the agentscape framework. In: Proc. of the 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGrid), pp. 688–696. IEEE Computer Society, Japan (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Papazoglou, M.P.: Service-oriented computing: Concepts, characteristics and directions. In: 4th International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE 2003), pp. 3–12. IEEE Computer Society, Italy (2003)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Payne, T.R.: Web services from an agent perspective. IEEE Intelligent Systems 23(2), 12–14 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rahwan, I.: Argumentation in multi-agent systems. Guest Editorial: Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 11(2), 115–125 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4), 343–375 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ricci, A., Buda, C., Zaghini, N., Natali, A., Viroli, M., Omicini, A.: simpa-ws: An agent-oriented computing technology for ws-based soa applications. In: Paoli, F.D., Stefano, A.D., Omicini, A., Santoro, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th WOA 2006 Workshop, From Objects to Agents (Dagli Oggetti Agli Agenti), CEUR Workshop Proceedings,, Italy (2006)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Robertson, D.: Multi-agent Coordination as Distributed Logic Programming. In: Demoen, B., Lifschitz, V. (eds.) ICLP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3132, pp. 416–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sreenath, R.M., Singh, M.P.: Agent-based service selection. Journal of Web Semantics 1(3), 261–279 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stathis, K., Kakas, A.C., Lu, W., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Bracciali, A.: PROSOCS: a platform for programming software agents in computational logic. In: Müller, J., Petta, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation (AT2AI 2004 – EMCSR 2004 Session M), Vienna, Austria, pp. 523–528 (2004)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stournaras, T. (ed.): eBusiness application scenarios. Deliverable document D1.2 ARGUGRID (2007)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sycara, K., Paolucci, M., Velsen, M.V., Giampapa, J.: The retsina mas infrastructure. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7(1-2), 29–48 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Toni, F.: Argumentative kgp agents for service composition. In: Proc. AITA 2008, Architectures for Intelligent Theory-Based Agents, AAAI Spring Symposium. Stanford University, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Urovi, V., Stathis, K.: Playing with agent coordination patterns in MAGE. In: Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems (COIN@AAMAS 2009), Budapest, Hungary (2009)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90(1-2), 225–279 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weyns, D., Omicini, A., Odell, J.: Environment as a first-class abstraction in multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(1), 5–30 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Morge
    • 1
  • J. McGinnis
    • 2
  • S. Bromuri
    • 3
  • P. Mancarella
    • 4
  • K. Stathis
    • 5
  • F. Toni
    • 6
  1. 1.Université Lille 1LilleFrance
  2. 2.Press AssociationLondonUK
  3. 3.University of Applied Science, Western SwitzerlandDelémonSwitzerland
  4. 4.Università di PisaPisaItaly
  5. 5.Royal Holloway, University of LondonLondonUK
  6. 6.Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations