Agreeing What to Do
نویسندگان
چکیده
When deliberating about what to do, an autonomous agent must generate and consider the relative pros and cons of the different options. The situation becomes even more complicated when an agent is involved in a joint deliberation, as each agent will have its own preferred outcome which may change as new information is received from the other agents involved in the deliberation. We present an argumentation-based dialogue system that allows agents to come to an agreement on how to act in order to achieve a joint goal. The dialogue strategy that we define ensures that any agreement reached is acceptable to each agent, but does not necessarily demand that the agents resolve or share their differing preferences. We give properties of our system and discuss possible extensions. ACM Category: I.2.11 Multiagent systems. General terms: Theory.
منابع مشابه
Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for dermatologists: What shall we do when we don’t know what to do?
What shall we do when we have done everything we could for the diagnosis and treatment of a patient, but were not successful? What shall we do when there is no definite treatment for a patient? What shall we do when we have no diagnosis or treatment for a patient? Some useful suggestions are presented here to get rid of these situations.
متن کاملEuthanasia: agreeing to disagree?
In discussions about the legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia it is sometimes claimed that what should happen in a liberal society is that the two sides in the debate "agree to disagree". This paper explores what is entailed by agreeing to disagree and shows that this is considerably more complicated than what is usually believed to be the case. Agreeing to disagree is philosophically p...
متن کاملHealth Policy and Management: In Praise of Political Science; Comment on “On Health Policy and Management (HPAM): Mind the Theory-Policy Practice Gap”
Health systems have entered a third era embracing whole systems thinking and posing complex policy and management challenges. Understanding how such systems work and agreeing what needs to be put in place to enable them to undergo effective and sustainable change are more pressing issues than ever for policy-makers. The theory-policy-practice-gap and its four dimensions, as articulated by Chini...
متن کاملIt Ain’t What You Do (But the Way That You Do It): Will Safety II Transform the Way We Do Patient Safety; Comment on “False Dawns and New Horizons in Patient Safety Research and Practice”
Mannion and Braithwaite outline a new paradigm for studying and improving patient safety – Safety II. In this response, I argue that Safety I should not be dismissed simply because the safety management strategies that are developed and enacted in the name of Safety I are not always true to the original philosophy of ‘systems thinking.’
متن کاملHigh Stakes Require More Than Just Talk: What to Do About Corruption in Health Systems; Comment on “We Need to Talk About Corruption in Health Systems”
Reluctance to talk about corruption is an important barrier to action. Yet the stakes of not addressing corruption in the health sector are higher than ever. Corruption includes wrongdoing by individuals, but it is also a problem of weak institutions captured by political interests, and underfunded, unreliable administrative systems and healthcare delivery models. We ur...
متن کامل