Argumentation Tool that Enables Agents to Argue
نویسندگان
چکیده
Multi-Agent Systems are suitable to provide a framework that allows to perform collaborative processes in distributed environments. Furthermore, argumentation is a natural way of reaching agreements between several parties. We propose an infrastructure to develop and execute argumentative agents in an open MAS. It offers the tools to develop agents with argumentation capabilities. It also offers support for agent societies and their social context, which allows agents to engage in argumentation dialogues in more realistic environments. In our application scenario, the argumentative agents try to reach an agreement about the best solution to apply to solve a problem reported to the system.
منابع مشابه
Towards Formalising Agent Argumentation over the Viability of Human Organs for Transplantation
In this paper we describe a human organ selection process in which agents argue over whether a given donor’s organ is viable for transplantation. This process is framed in the CARREL System; an agent-based organization designed to improve the overall transplant process. We formalize an argumentation based framework that enables CARREL agents to construct and assess arguments for and against the...
متن کاملSoftware Agents in Support of Human Argument Mapping
This paper reports progress in realizing human-agent argumentation, which we argue will be part of future Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation (CSCA) tools. With a particular interest in argument mapping, we present two investigations demonstrating how a particular agent-oriented language and architecture can augment CSCA: (i) the use of the IBIS formalism enabling Brahms agents to si...
متن کاملAgent Decision Making Using Argumentation About Actions
In this paper we consider how a BDI agent might determine its best course of action. We draw on previous work which has presented a model of persuasion over action and extends the account of Walton. We propose a formalism based upon this model which extends the BDI agent architecture to include the notion of value functions. This enables us to make use of an argumentation framework in order to ...
متن کاملSpecification and Complexity of Strategic-Based Reasoning Using Argumentation
In this paper, we propose a new strategic and tactic reasoning for agent communication. This reasoning framework is specified using argumentation theory combined to a relevance theory. Strategic reasoning enables agents to decide about the global communication plan in terms of the macro-actions to perform in order to achieve the main conversational goal. Tactic reasoning, on the other hand, all...
متن کاملMulti-Agent Decision Making with Assumption-based Argumentation
Much research has been devoted in recent years to argumentationbased decision making. However, less attention has been given to argumentation-based decision making amongst multiple agents. We present a multi-agent decision framework based on Assumptionbased Argumentation. In our model, agents have goals and decisions have attributes which satisfy goals. Our framework supports agents with differ...
متن کامل