Dynamic argumentation in UbiGDSS (original) (raw)
Related papers
Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system
Information Systems, 2001
Collaborative Decision Making problems can be addressed through argumentative discourse and collaboration among the users involved. Consensus is achieved through the process of collaboratively considering alternative understandings of the problem, competing interests, priorities and constraints. The application of formal modeling and analysis tools to solve the related processes is impossible before the problem can be articulated in a concise and agreed upon manner. This paper describes HERMES, a system that augments classical decision making approaches by supporting argumentative discourse among decision makers. It is fully implemented in Java and runs on the Web, thus providing relatively inexpensive access to a broad public. Using an illustrative example, we present the argumentation elements, discourse acts and reasoning mechanisms involved in HERMES. We also describe the integration of advanced features to the system; these enable users to retrieve data stored in remote databases in order to further warrant their arguments, and stimulate them to perform acts that best reflect their interests and intentions.
A formal approach to argumentation in group decision scenarios
2006
Time and space consuming are disadvantages in group meetings but are easily faced in computer systems. Agent based group decision support systems reduce the loss usually associated to group work, turning more relevant the benefits that emerge from group meetings. Better decisions are taken after negotiation through choice and convincement. In this paper, a formal logic programming based system is proposed to represent agent knowledge and reasoning in order to be used in argumentation for decision group taking, supporting meetings where agents participate and communicate.
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2017
Supporting group decision-making when the decision-makers are spread around the world is a complex process. The mechanisms of automated negotiation, such as argumentation, can be used in Ubiquitous Group Decision Support Systems to help decision-makers find a solution based on their preferences. However, there are some other important issues that affect the decisionmaking process beyond typical preferences over criteria and alternatives. In this paper, we propose an algorithm that will allow agents to reason about self-expertise and other decision makers' credibility. This way, we intend agents to achieve better quality and more consensual decisions. Our algorithm includes not only the decision-maker's preferences but also his intentions in the process. By using the proposed model, agents achieved a stronger consensus in all scenarios that were considered and higher satisfaction levels in the most complex scenarios.
A Computational Approach for Argumentative Discourse in Multi-Agent Decision Making Environments
Ai Communications
This paper describes a Group Decision Support System for cooperative or non-cooperative argumentative discourses. The system provides agents means of expressing and weighing their individual arguments and preferences, in order to argue for or against the selection of a certain choice. It supports defeasible and qualitative reasoning in the presence of illstructured information. Argumentation is performed through a set of discourse acts which call a variety of procedures for the propagation of information in the corresponding discussion graph. The system incorporates Case Based Reasoning to resolve current issues by using previous similar situations. Cases are not mere representations of past data, but flexible entities associated with the underlying viewpoint of an agent and the evolution of the corresponding discussion. The paper provides an object-oriented description of the elements involved, and illustrates their dependencies through a comprehensive example. 1 the term informal logic was primarily used to denote an approach to argument interpretation and evaluation that is distinct from traditional, formal logic. AI Communications 0 () 0
A computational approach for argumentative discourse in multidagent decision making environments
Ai Communications, 1998
This paper describes a Group Decision Support System for cooperative or non-cooperative argumentative discourses. The system provides agents means of expressing and weighing their individual arguments and preferences, in order to argue for or against the selection of a certain choice. It supports defeasible and qualitative reasoning in the presence of illstructured information. Argumentation is performed through a set of discourse acts which call a variety of procedures for the propagation of information in the corresponding discussion graph. The system incorporates Case Based Reasoning to resolve current issues by using previous similar situations. Cases are not mere representations of past data, but flexible entities associated with the underlying viewpoint of an agent and the evolution of the corresponding discussion. The paper provides an object-oriented description of the elements involved, and illustrates their dependencies through a comprehensive example. 1 the term informal logic was primarily used to denote an approach to argument interpretation and evaluation that is distinct from traditional, formal logic. AI Communications 0 () 0
VirtualECare: Group Decision Supported by idea Generation and Argumentation
IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing
It is understood that Collaborative Work plays an important role in today's organizations life cycle. On the other hand, any decision that may involve a set of decision makers is, by itself, quite complex. It is under this umbrella that it will be presented the VirtualECare project, that contemplates an intelligent multi-agent system able to monitor, interact and serve its customers in need of (health)care services. We will center our attention on the system group decision and argumentation modules, which use idea generation techniques and resort to argumentation to exchange and justify belief and choice. At the end, a prototype will be presented.
Modelling Group Decision Simulation Through Argumentation
2008
Group decision making plays an important role in today's organisations. The impact of decision making is so high and complex, that rarely the decision making process is made individually. In Group Decision Argumentation, there is a set of participants, with different profiles and expertise levels, that exchange ideas or engage in a process of argumentation and counter-argumentation, negotiate, cooperate, collaborate or even discuss techniques and/or methodologies for problem solving. In this paper, it is proposed a Multi-Agent simulator for the behaviour representation of group members in a decision making process. Agents behave depending on rational and emotional intelligence and use persuasive argumentation to convince and make alternative choices.
ABA: Argumentation Based Agents
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2012
Many works have identified the potential benefits of using argumentation in multiagent settings, as a way to implement the capabilities of agents (eg. decision making, communication, negotiation) when confronted with specific multiagent problems. In this paper we take this idea one step further and develop the concept of a fully integrated argumentation-based agent architecture. Under this architecture, an agent is composed of a collection of modules each of which is responsible for a basic capability or reasoning task of the agent. A local argumentation theory in the module gives preferred decision choices for the module's task in a way that is sensitive to the way the agent is currently situated in its external environment. The inter-module coordination or intra-agent control also relies on a local argumentation theory in each module that defines an internal communication policy between the modules. The paper lays the foundations of this approach, presents an abstract agent architecture and gives the general underlying argumentation machinery minimally required for building such agents, including the important aspects of inter-module coordination via argumentation. It presents the basic properties that we can expect from these agents and illustrates the possibility of this type of agent design with its advantages of high-level of flexibility and expressiveness.