Mixed Theories

In the present paper we investigate the life cycles of formalized theories that appear in decision making instruments and science. In few words mixed theories are build in the following steps: Initially a small collection of facts is the kernel of the theory. To express these facts we make a special formalized language. When the collection grows we add some inference rules and thus some axioms to compress the knowledge. The next step is to generalize these rules to all expressions in the formalized language. For these rules we introduce some conclusion procedure. In such a way we make small theories for restricted fields of the knowledge. The most important procedure is the mixing of these partial knowledge systems. In that step we glue the theories together and eliminate the contradictions. The last operation is the most complicated one and some simplifying procedures are proposed.

Argumentation as Distributed Belief Revision: Conflict Resolution in Decentralised Multi-agent Systems

Decentralised co-operative multi-agent systems are computational systems where conflicts are frequent due to the nature of the represented knowledge. Negotiation methodologies, in this case argumentation based negotiation methodologies, were developed and applied to solve unforeseeable and, therefore, unavoidable conflicts. The supporting computational model is a distributed belief revision system where argumentation plays the decisive role of revision. The distributed belief revision system detects, isolates and solves, whenever possible, the identified conflicts. The detection and isolation of the conflicts is automatically performed by the distributed consistency mechanism and the resolution of the conflict, or belief revision, is achieved via argumentation. We propose and describe two argumentation protocols intended to solve different types of identified information conflicts: context dependent and context independent conflicts. While the protocol for context dependent conflicts generates new consensual alternatives, the latter chooses to adopt the soundest, strongest argument presented. The paper shows the suitability of using argumentation as a distributed decentralised belief revision protocol to solve unavoidable conflicts.

Argumentation and artifacts for intelligent multi-agent systems

Reasoning under uncertainty is a human capacity that in software system is necessary and often hidden. Argumentation theory and logic make explicit non-monotonic information in order to enable automatic forms of reasoning under uncertainty. In human organization Distributed Cognition and Activity Theory explain how artifacts are fundamental in all cognitive process. Then, in this thesis we search to understand the use of cognitive artifacts in an new argumentation framework for an agent-based artificial society.

VirtualECare: group decision supported by idea generation and argumentation

In the last years there has been a considerable increase in the number of people in need of intensive care, especially among the elderly, a phenomenon that is related to population ageing (Brown 2003). However, this is not exclusive of the elderly, as diseases as obesity, diabetes, and blood pressure have been increasing among young adults (Ford and Capewell 2007). As a new fact, it has to be dealt with by the healthcare sector, and particularly by the public one. Thus, the importance of finding new and cost effective ways for healthcare delivery are of particular importance, especially when the patients are not to be detached from their environments (WHO 2004). Following this line of thinking, a VirtualECare Multiagent System is presented in section 2, being our efforts centered on its Group Decision modules (Costa, Neves et al. 2007) (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh 2001).On the other hand, there has been a growing interest in combining the technological advances in the information society - computing, telecommunications and knowledge – in order to create new methodologies for problem solving, namely those that convey on Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS), based on agent perception. Indeed, the new economy, along with increased competition in today’s complex business environments, takes the companies to seek complementarities, in order to increase competitiveness and reduce risks. Under these scenarios, planning takes a major role in a company life cycle. However, effective planning depends on the generation and analysis of ideas (innovative or not) and, as a result, the idea generation and management processes are crucial. Our objective is to apply the GDSS referred to above to a new area. We believe that the use of GDSS in the healthcare arena will allow professionals to achieve better results in the analysis of one’s Electronically Clinical Profile (ECP). This attainment is vital, regarding the incoming to the market of new drugs and medical practices, which compete in the use of limited resources.

Evaluating the combination of relaxation and argumentation in ontology matching negotiation

No decorrer dos últimos anos, os agentes (inteligentes) de software foram empregues como um método para colmatar as dificuldades associadas com a gestão, partilha e reutilização de um crescente volume de informação, enquanto as ontologias foram utilizadas para modelar essa mesma informação num formato semanticamente explícito e rico. À medida que a popularidade da Web Semântica aumenta e cada vez informação é partilhada sob a forma de ontologias, o problema de integração desta informação amplifica-se. Em semelhante contexto, não é expectável que dois agentes que pretendam cooperar utilizem a mesma ontologia para descrever a sua conceptualização do mundo. Inclusive pode revelar-se necessário que agentes interajam sem terem conhecimento prévio das ontologias utilizadas pelos restantes, sendo necessário que as conciliem em tempo de execução num processo comummente designado por Mapeamento de Ontologias [1]. O processo de mapeamento de ontologias é normalmente oferecido como um serviço aos agentes de negócio, podendo ser requisitado sempre que seja necessário produzir um alinhamento. No entanto, tendo em conta que cada agente tem as suas próprias necessidades e objetivos, assim como a própria natureza subjetiva das ontologias que utilizam, é possível que tenham diferentes interesses relativamente ao processo de alinhamento e que, inclusive, recorram aos serviços de mapeamento que considerem mais convenientes [1]. Diferentes matchers podem produzir resultados distintos e até mesmo contraditórios, criando-se assim conflitos entre os agentes. É necessário que se proceda então a uma tentativa de resolução dos conflitos existentes através de um processo de negociação, de tal forma que os agentes possam chegar a um consenso relativamente às correspondências que devem ser utilizadas na tradução de mensagens a trocar. A resolução de conflitos é considerada uma métrica de grande importância no que diz respeito ao processo de negociação [2]: considera-se que existe uma maior confiança associada a um alinhamento quanto menor o número de conflitos por resolver no processo de negociação que o gerou. Desta forma, um alinhamento com um número elevado de conflitos por resolver apresenta uma confiança menor que o mesmo alinhamento associado a um número elevado de conflitos resolvidos. O processo de negociação para que dois ou mais agentes gerem e concordem com um alinhamento é denominado de Negociação de Mapeamentos de Ontologias. À data existem duas abordagens propostas na literatura: (i) baseadas em Argumentação (e.g. [3] [4]) e (ii) baseadas em Relaxamento [5] [6]. Cada uma das propostas expostas apresenta um número de vantagens e limitações. Foram propostas várias formas de combinação das duas técnicas [2], com o objetivo de beneficiar das vantagens oferecidas e colmatar as suas limitações. No entanto, à data, não são conhecidas experiências documentadas que possam provar tal afirmação e, como tal, não é possível atestar que tais combinações tragam, de facto, o benefício que pretendem. O trabalho aqui apresentado pretende providenciar tais experiências e verificar se a afirmação de melhorias em relação aos resultados das técnicas individuais se mantém. Com o objetivo de permitir a combinação e de colmatar as falhas identificadas, foi proposta uma nova abordagem baseada em Relaxamento, que é posteriormente combinada com as abordagens baseadas em Argumentação. Os seus resultados, juntamente com os da combinação, são aqui apresentados e discutidos, sendo possível identificar diferenças nos resultados gerados por combinações diferentes e possíveis contextos de utilização.

Integrating defeasible argumentation with fuzzy ART neural networks for pattern classification

Many classification systems rely on clustering techniques in which a collection of training examples is provided as an input, and a number of clusters c1,...cm modelling some concept C results as an output, such that every cluster ci is labelled as positive or negative. Given a new, unlabelled instance enew, the above classification is used to determine to which particular cluster ci this new instance belongs. In such a setting clusters can overlap, and a new unlabelled instance can be assigned to more than one cluster with conflicting labels. In the literature, such a case is usually solved non-deterministically by making a random choice. This paper presents a novel, hybrid approach to solve this situation by combining a neural network for classification along with a defeasible argumentation framework which models preference criteria for performing clustering.

Formalizing defeasible argumentation using a labeled deductive system

In the last years there has been an increasing demand of a variety of logical systems, prompted mostly by applications of logic in AI, logic programming and other related areas. Labeled Deductive Systems (LDS) were developed as a flexible methodology to formalize such a kind of complex logical systems. In the last decade, defeasible argumentation has proven to be a confluence point for many approaches to formalizing commonsense reasoning. Different formalisms have been developed, many of them sharing common features. This paper presents a formalization of an LDS for defensible argumentation, in which the main issues concerning defeasible argumentation are captured within a unified logical framework. The proposed framework is defined in two stages. First, defeasible inference will be formalized by characterizing an argumentative LDS. That system will be then extended in order to capture conflict among arguments using a dialectical approach. We also present some logical properties emerging from the proposed framework, discussing also its semantical characterization.

A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: formalization and logical properties

In the last decade defeasible argumentation frameworks have evolved to become a sound setting to formalize commonsense, qualitative reasoning. The logic programming paradigm has shown to be particularly useful for developing different argument-based frameworks on the basis of different variants of logic programming which incorporate defeasible rules. Most of such frameworks, however, are unable to deal with explicit uncertainty, nor with vague knowledge, as defeasibility is directly encoded in the object language. This paper presents Possibilistic Logic Programming (P-DeLP), a new logic programming language which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, incorporating as well the treatment of possibilistic uncertainty. Such features are formalized on the basis of PGL, a possibilistic logic based on G¨odel fuzzy logic. One of the applications of P-DeLP is providing an intelligent agent with non-monotonic, argumentative inference capabilities. In this paper we also provide a better understanding of such capabilities by defining two non-monotonic operators which model the expansion of a given program P by adding new weighed facts associated with argument conclusions and warranted literals, respectively. Different logical properties for the proposed operators are studied

Management of industrial wastewater discharges in river basins through agents'argumentation

La gestió de l'aigua residual és una tasca complexa. Hi ha moltes substàncies contaminants conegudes però encara moltes per conèixer, i el seu efecte individual o col·lgectiu és difícil de predir. La identificació i avaluació dels impactes ambientals resultants de la interacció entre els sistemes naturals i socials és un assumpte multicriteri. Els gestors ambientals necessiten eines de suport pels seus diagnòstics per tal de solucionar problemes ambientals. Les contribucions d'aquest treball de recerca són dobles: primer, proposar l'ús d'un enfoc basat en la modelització amb agents per tal de conceptualitzar i integrar tots els elements que estan directament o indirectament involucrats en la gestió de l'aigua residual. Segon, proposar un marc basat en l'argumentació amb l'objectiu de permetre als agents raonar efectivament. La tesi conté alguns exemples reals per tal de mostrar com un marc basat amb agents que argumenten pot suportar diferents interessos i diferents perspectives. Conseqüentment, pot ajudar a construir un diàleg més informat i efectiu i per tant descriure millor les interaccions entre els agents. En aquest document es descriu primer el context estudiat, escalant el problema global de la gestió de la conca fluvial a la gestiódel sistema urbà d'aigües residuals, concretament l'escenari dels abocaments industrials. A continuació, s'analitza el sistema mitjançant la descripció d'agents que interaccionen. Finalment, es descriuen alguns prototips capaços de raonar i deliberar, basats en la lògica no monòtona i en un llenguatge declaratiu (answer set programming). És important remarcar que aquesta tesi enllaça dues disciplines: l'enginyeria ambiental (concretament l'àrea de la gestió de les aigües residuals) i les ciències de la computació (concretament l'àrea de la intel·ligència artificial), contribuint així a la multidisciplinarietat requerida per fer front al problema estudiat. L'enginyeria ambiental ens proporciona el coneixement del domini mentre que les ciències de la computació ens permeten estructurar i especificar aquest coneixement.

Argumentative systems in robots

Nowadays, the development of intelligent agents intends to be more refined, using improved architectures and reasoning mechanisms. Revise the beliefs of an agent is also an important subject, due to the consistency that agents should have about their knowledge. In this work we propose deliberative and argumentative agents using Lego Mindstorms robots, Argumentative NXT BDI-like Agents. These agents are built using the notions of the BDI model and they are capable to reason using the DeLP formalism. They update their knowledge base with their perceptions and revise it when necessary. Two variations are presented: the Single Argumentative NXT BDI-like Agent and the MAS Argumentative NXT BDI-like Agent.

Argumentation strategies for plan resourcing

Postprint

Distributed argumentation technology: advancing risk analysis and regulatory compliance of distributed ledger technologies for transaction and management of securities

Distributed argumentation technology is a computational approach incorporating argumentation reasoning mechanisms within multi-agent systems. For the formal foundations of distributed argumentation technology, in this thesis we conduct a principle-based analysis of structured argumentation as well as abstract multi-agent and abstract bipolar argumentation. The results of the principle-based approach of these theories provide an overview and guideline for further applications of the theories. Moreover, in this thesis we explore distributed argumentation technology using distributed ledgers. We envision an Intelligent Human-input-based Blockchain Oracle (IHiBO), an artificial intelligence tool for storing argumentation reasoning. We propose a decentralized and secure architecture for conducting decision-making, addressing key concerns of trust, transparency, and immutability. We model fund management with agent argumentation in IHiBO and analyze its compliance with European fund management legal frameworks. We illustrate how bipolar argumentation balances pros and cons in legal reasoning in a legal divorce case, and how the strength of arguments in natural language can be represented in structured arguments. Finally, we discuss how distributed argumentation technology can be used to advance risk management, regulatory compliance of distributed ledgers for financial securities, and dialogue techniques.