A Satisficing Agreements Model

in Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms (COIN@WI-IAT) (2011)

Satisficing, the concept proposed by Herbert Simon, as an approach to reaching agreements is little explored. We propose a model for satisficing agreement reaching for an adaptive collaborative group of ... [more ▼]

Satisficing, the concept proposed by Herbert Simon, as an approach to reaching agreements is little explored. We propose a model for satisficing agreement reaching for an adaptive collaborative group of agents. The group consists of one human agent familiar with the problem and arbitrarily many artificial agents. Our model raises to the team level the recognition-primed decision model constructed in the field of cognitive decision-making by using social choice for reaching group opinions. [less ▲]

Higher-Order Coalition Logic

in Bibliothèque(s) : revue de l'Association des bibliothécaires de France (2010)

We introduce and study higher-order coalition logic, a multi modal monadic second-order logic with operators [{x}ψ]φ expressing that the coalition of all agents satisfying ψ(x) can achieve a state in ... [more ▼]

We introduce and study higher-order coalition logic, a multi modal monadic second-order logic with operators [{x}ψ]φ expressing that the coalition of all agents satisfying ψ(x) can achieve a state in which φ holds. We use neighborhood semantics to model extensive games of perfect information with simultaneous actions and we provide a framework reasoning about agents in the same way as it is reasoning about their abilities. We illustrate higher-order coalition logic to represent and reason about coalition formation and cooperation, we show a more general and expressive way to quantify over coalitions than quantified coalition logic, we give an axiomatization and prove completeness. [less ▲]

Arguing about Trust in Multiagent Systems

in Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Artificial Intelligence of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AIIA'10) (2010)

Trust in multiagent systems is used for seeking to minimize the uncertainty in the interactions among the agents. In this paper, we discuss how to use argumentation to reason about trust. Using the ... [more ▼]

Trust in multiagent systems is used for seeking to minimize the uncertainty in the interactions among the agents. In this paper, we discuss how to use argumentation to reason about trust. Using the methodology of meta-argumentation, first we represent the source of the information from which the argument is constructed in the abstract argumentation framework capturing the fact that b is attacked because b is from a particular source s. We show how a source of information can be attacked if it is not evaluated as trustworthy. Second, we provide a fine grained representation of the trust relationships between the information sources in which trust concerns not only the sources but also the single arguments and attack relations the sources propose. Moreover, we represent the evidences in support of the arguments which are put forward by the information sources and the agents can express arguments by referring to other agents’ arguments. Meta-argumentation allows us not to extend Dung’s abstract argumentation framework by introducing trust and to reuse those principles and properties defined for Dung’s framework. [less ▲]

Support in Abstract Argumentation

in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'10) (2010)

n this paper, we consider two drawbacks of Cayrol and Lagasque-Schiex's meta-argumentation theory to model bipolar argumentation frameworks. We consider first the “lost of admissibility” in Dung's sense ... [more ▼]

n this paper, we consider two drawbacks of Cayrol and Lagasque-Schiex's meta-argumentation theory to model bipolar argumentation frameworks. We consider first the “lost of admissibility” in Dung's sense and second, the definition of notions of attack in the context of a support relation. We show how to prevent these drawbacks by introducing support meta-arguments. Like the model of Cayrol and Lagasque-Schiex, our formalization confirms the use of meta-argumentation to reuse Dung's properties. We do not take a stance towards the usefulness of a support relation among arguments, though we show that if one would like to introduce them, it can be done without extending Dung's theory. Finally, we show how to use meta-argumentation to instantiate an argumentation framework to represent defeasible support. In this model of support, the support relation itself can be attacked. [less ▲]

Five guidelines for normative multiagent systems

in Proceedings of JURIX 2009 - The 22nd International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (2009, December)

n this paper we introduce and discuss five guidelines for the use of normative systems in computer science. We adopt a multiagent systems perspective, because norms are used to coordinate, organize, guide ... [more ▼]

n this paper we introduce and discuss five guidelines for the use of normative systems in computer science. We adopt a multiagent systems perspective, because norms are used to coordinate, organize, guide, regulate or control interaction among distributed autonomous systems. They are derived from the computer science literature. From the so-called ‘normchange’ definition of the first workshop on normative multiagent systems in 2005 we derive the guidelines to motivate which definition of normative multiagent system is used, to make explicit why norms are a kind of (soft) constraints deserving special analysis, and to explain why and how norms can be changed at runtime. From the so-called ‘mechanism design’ definition of the second workshop on normative multiagent systems in 2007 we derive the guidelines to discuss the use and role of norms as a mechanism in a game-theoretic setting, and to clarify the role of norms in the multiagent system. [less ▲]

Norm Negotiation in Online Multi-Player Games

in Knowledge & Information Systems (2009), 18(2), 137156

In this paper, we introduce an agent communication protocol and speech acts for norm negotiation. The protocol creates individual or contractual obligations to fulfill goals of the agents based on the so ... [more ▼]

In this paper, we introduce an agent communication protocol and speech acts for norm negotiation. The protocol creates individual or contractual obligations to fulfill goals of the agents based on the so-called social delegation cycle. First, agents communicate their individual goals and powers. Second, they propose social goals which can be accepted or rejected by other agents. Third, they propose obligations and sanctions to achieve the social goal, which can again be accepted or rejected. Finally, the agents accept the new norm by indicating which of their communicated individual goals the norm achieves. The semantics of the speech acts is based on a commitment to public mental attitudes. The norm negotiation model is illustrated by an example of norm negotiation in multi-player online gaming. [less ▲]

Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Abstraction Principles and the Grounded Extension

in Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 10th European Conference, ECSQARU 2009, Verona, Italy, July 1-3, 2009. Proceedings (2009)

In this paper we consider the dynamics of abstract argumentation in Baroni and Giacomin’s framework for the evaluation of extension based argumentation semantics. Following Baroni and Giacomin, we do not ... [more ▼]

In this paper we consider the dynamics of abstract argumentation in Baroni and Giacomin’s framework for the evaluation of extension based argumentation semantics. Following Baroni and Giacomin, we do not consider individual approaches, but we define general principles or postulates that individual approaches may satisfy. In particular, we define abstraction principles for the attack relation, and for the arguments in the framework. We illustrate the principles on the grounded extension. In this paper we consider only principles for the single extension case, and leave the multiple extension case to further research. [less ▲]

Checking Consistency in role oriented Dependence Networks

in BNAIC 2009: 21th Belgian - Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2009)

In this paper we first formalize dependence networks that can be automaticaly build to model goalbased relationships among agents. Then, we propose three algorithms to build and check the consistency of a ... [more ▼]

In this paper we first formalize dependence networks that can be automaticaly build to model goalbased relationships among agents. Then, we propose three algorithms to build and check the consistency of a dependence network. We start presenting the elements composing our ontology such as agents, goals, skills, dependencies with the addition of the institutional notions of roles, institutional goals, institutional skills. We investigate the reasons behind the possible inconsistencies in building the combined dependence network and we propose an algorithm to check them [less ▲]

On the Acceptability of Meta-Arguments

in Proceedings of IAT 2009: Procs. of IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (2009)

In this paper we introduce a theory of meta-argumentation, by using Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to reason about itself. Meta-arguments are generated from atomic arguments, and extensions of ... [more ▼]

In this paper we introduce a theory of meta-argumentation, by using Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to reason about itself. Meta-arguments are generated from atomic arguments, and extensions of acceptable meta-arguments are based on Dung’s argumentation semantics. To illustrate our theory, we show how to represent Toulmin schemes in this theory by introducing meta-arguments using the Caminada labeling, and meta-arguments for support [less ▲]

Normative systems in computer science. Ten guidelines for normative multiagent systems

in Normative Multi-agent Systems (2009)

In this paper we introduce and discuss ten guidelines for the use of normative systems in computer science. We adopt a multiagent sys- tems perspective, because norms are used to coordinate, organize ... [more ▼]

In this paper we introduce and discuss ten guidelines for the use of normative systems in computer science. We adopt a multiagent sys- tems perspective, because norms are used to coordinate, organize, guide, regulate or control interaction among distributed autonomous systems. The first six guidelines are derived from the computer science literature. From the so-called ‘normchange’ definition of the first workshop on nor- mative multiagent systems in 2005 we derive the guidelines to motivate which definition of normative multiagent system is used, to make explicit why norms are a kind of (soft) constraints deserving special analysis, and to explain why and how norms can be changed at runtime. From the so-called ‘mechanism design’ definition of the second workshop on nor- mative multiagent systems in 2007 we derive the guidelines to discuss the use and role of norms as a mechanism in a game-theoretic setting, clarify the role of norms in the multiagent system, and to relate the no- tion of “norm” to the legal, social, or moral literature. The remaining four guidelines follow from the philosophical literature: use norms also to resolve dilemmas, and in general to coordinate, organize, guide, regulate or control interaction among agents, distinguish norms from obligations, prohibitions and permissions, use the deontic paradoxes only to illustrate the normative multiagent system, and consider regulative norms in rela- tion to other kinds of norms and other social-cognitive computer science concepts. [less ▲]