Download Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: 4th International by Leila Amgoud, Yannis Dimopoulos, Pavlos Moraitis (auth.), PDF

By Leila Amgoud, Yannis Dimopoulos, Pavlos Moraitis (auth.), Iyad Rahwan, Simon Parsons, Chris Reed (eds.)

Show description

Read or Download Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: 4th International Workshop, ArgMAS 2007, Honolulu, HI, USA, May 15, 2007, Revised Selected and Invited Papers PDF

Best international_1 books

Static Analysis: 15th International Symposium, SAS 2008, Valencia, Spain, July 16-18, 2008. Proceedings

This ebook constitutes the refereed court cases of the fifteenth overseas Symposium on Static research, SAS 2008, held in Valencia, Spain in July 2008 - co-located with LOPSTR 2008, the overseas Symposium on Logic-based application Synthesis and Transformation, PPDP 2008, the overseas ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on rules and perform of Declarative Programming, and PLID 2008, the overseas Workshop on Programming Language Interference and Dependence.

The International Biotechnology Directory 1993: Products, Companies, Research and Organizations

Offers the reader with info on greater than 8500 businesses, examine centres and educational associations excited by new and confirmed applied sciences. This 1993 variation has greater than seven hundred association listings combining advertisement and non-commercial companies.

Additional resources for Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: 4th International Workshop, ArgMAS 2007, Honolulu, HI, USA, May 15, 2007, Revised Selected and Invited Papers

Example text

A CAA would be useful, for example, to identify subsets of arguments agreeable to all participants in the society. In this paper, we first introduce our reference notion of Argumentation System (Section 2), then (Section 3) we discuss the properties of an Argumentation Component. In Section 4 the new Co-Argumentation Artifacts abstraction is defined and explained, and a simple example built on top of the TuCSoN coordination infrastructure is discussed. 2 Argumentation System In this section we introduce the system of argumentation that is the reference for our approach.

G. simultaneously) or asymmetrically, etc. We now look at a specific IBN protocol and analyse it using the above concepts. We assume that agents have no prior knowledge of each other’s main goals or preferences; and that prior to negotiation, each agent i considers all individuallyachievable plans, for its main goal, using Λ(i), as well as potential rational deals. An IBN protocol is presented Table 2. Note that this protocol is asymmetric, since during the IBN sub-dialogue, the agent being questioned is assumed to fix its intended plans, while the questioning agent may accept the deal in question by discovering new viable plans that take into account the questionee’s goals.

And let sub : G ×2G∪R be a relationship between a goal and the sub-goals or resources needed to achieve it. Intuitively, sub(g, {g1 , . . , gn }) means that achieving all the goals g1 , . . , gn results in achieving the higher-level goal g. Each sub-goal in the set {g1 , . . , gn } may itself be achievable using another set of sub-goals, thus resulting in a goal hierarchy. We assume that this hierarchy takes the form of a tree (called goal tree or plan). This condition is reasonable since the sub-goal relation captures specialisation of abstract goals into more concrete goals.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.51 of 5 – based on 46 votes