DR-NEGOTIATE - A system for automated agent negotiation with defeasible logic-based strategies

This paper reports on a system for automated agent negotiation, based on a formal and executable approach to capture the behavior of parties involved in a negotiation. It uses the JADE agent framework, and its major distinctive feature is the use of declarative negotiation strategies. The negotiation strategies are expressed in a declarative rules language, defeasible logic, and are applied using the implemented system DR-DEVICE. The key ideas and the overall system architecture are described, and a particular negotiation case is presented in detail.

BIO Logical Agents: Norms, Beliefs, Intentions in Defeasible Logic

In this paper we follow the BOID (Belief, Obligation, Intention, Desire) architecture to describe agents and agent types in Defeasible Logic. We argue, in particular, that the introduction of obligations can provide a new reading of the concepts of intention and intentionality. Then we examine the notion of social agent (i.e., an agent where obligations prevail over intentions) and discuss some computational and philosophical issues related to it. We show that the notion of social agent either requires more complex computations or has some philosophical drawbacks.

Interaction between Normative Systems and Cognitive Agents in Temporal Modal Defeasible Logic

While some recent frameworks on cognitive agents addressed the combination of mental attitudes with deontic concepts, they commonly ignore the representation of time. An exception is [1]that manages also some temporal aspects both with respect to cognition and normative provisions. We propose in this paper an extension of the logic presented in [1]with temporal intervals.

Contextual Deliberation of Cognitive Agents in Defeasible Logic

This article extends Defeasible Logic to deal with the contextual deliberation process of cognitive agents. First, we introduce meta-rules to reason with rules. Meta-rules are rules that have as a consequent rules for motivational components, such as obligations, intentions and desires. In other words, they include nested rules. Second, we introduce explicit preferences among rules. They deal with complex structures where nested rules can be involved.

Interactions between normative systems and software cognitive agents. A formalization in temporal modal defeasible logic and its implementation

Sustainable computer systems require some flexibility to adapt to environmental unpredictable changes. A solution lies in autonomous software agents which can adapt autonomously to their environments. Though autonomy allows agents to decide which behavior to adopt, a disadvantage is a lack of control, and as a side effect even untrustworthiness: we want to keep some control over such autonomous agents. How to control autonomous agents while respecting their autonomy? A solution is to regulate agents’ behavior by norms. The normative paradigm makes it possible to control autonomous agents while respecting their autonomy, limiting untrustworthiness and augmenting system compliance. It can also facilitate the design of the system, for example, by regulating the coordination among agents. However, an autonomous agent will follow norms or violate them in some conditions. What are the conditions in which a norm is binding upon an agent? While autonomy is regarded as the driving force behind the normative paradigm, cognitive agents provide a basis for modeling the bindingness of norms. In order to cope with the complexity of the modeling of cognitive agents and normative bindingness, we adopt an intentional stance. Since agents are embedded into a dynamic environment, things may not pass at the same instant. Accordingly, our cognitive model is extended to account for some temporal aspects. Special attention is given to the temporal peculiarities of the legal domain such as, among others, the time in force and the time in efficacy of provisions. Some types of normative modifications are also discussed in the framework. It is noteworthy that our temporal account of legal reasoning is integrated to our commonsense temporal account of cognition. As our intention is to build sustainable reasoning systems running unpredictable environment, we adopt a declarative representation of knowledge. A declarative representation of norms will make it easier to update their system representation, thus facilitating system maintenance; and to improve system transparency, thus easing system governance. Since agents are bounded and are embedded into unpredictable environments, and since conflicts may appear amongst mental states and norms, agent reasoning has to be defeasible, i.e. new pieces of information can invalidate formerly derivable conclusions. In this dissertation, our model is formalized into a non-monotonic logic, namely into a temporal modal defeasible logic, in order to account for the interactions between normative systems and software cognitive agents.

Implementation of a non ground meta interpreter for defeasible logic

Human reasoning is a fascinating and complex cognitive process that can be applied in different research areas such as philosophy, psychology, laws and financial. Unfortunately, developing supporting software (to those different areas) able to cope such as complex reasoning it’s difficult and requires a suitable logic abstract formalism. In this thesis we aim to develop a program, that has the job to evaluate a theory (a set of rules) w.r.t. a Goal, and provide some results such as “The Goal is derivable from the KB5 (of the theory)”. In order to achieve this goal we need to analyse different logics and choose the one that best meets our needs. In logic, usually, we try to determine if a given conclusion is logically implied by a set of assumptions T (theory). However, when we deal with programming logic we need an efficient algorithm in order to find such implications. In this work we use a logic rather similar to human logic. Indeed, human reasoning requires an extension of the first order logic able to reach a conclusion depending on not definitely true6 premises belonging to a incomplete set of knowledge. Thus, we implemented a defeasible logic7 framework able to manipulate defeasible rules. Defeasible logic is a non-monotonic logic designed for efficient defeasible reasoning by Nute (see Chapter 2). Those kind of applications are useful in laws area especially if they offer an implementation of an argumentation framework that provides a formal modelling of game. Roughly speaking, let the theory is the set of laws, a keyclaim is the conclusion that one of the party wants to prove (and the other one wants to defeat) and adding dynamic assertion of rules, namely, facts putted forward by the parties, then, we can play an argumentative challenge between two players and decide if the conclusion is provable or not depending on the different strategies performed by the players. Implementing a game model requires one more meta-interpreter able to evaluate the defeasible logic framework; indeed, according to Göedel theorem (see on page 127), we cannot evaluate the meaning of a language using the tools provided by the language itself, but we need a meta-language able to manipulate the object language8. Thus, rather than a simple meta-interpreter, we propose a Meta-level containing different Meta-evaluators. The former has been explained above, the second one is needed to perform the game model, and the last one will be used to change game execution and tree derivation strategies.

Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming

Defeasible reasoning is a simple but efficient approach to nonmonotonic reasoning that has recently attracted considerable interest and that has found various applications. Defeasible logic and its variants are an important family of defeasible reasoning methods. So far no relationship has been established between defeasible logic and mainstream nonmonotonic reasoning approaches. In this paper we establish close links to known semantics of logic programs. In particular, we give a translation of a defeasible theory D into a meta-program P(D). We show that under a condition of decisiveness, the defeasible consequences of D correspond exactly to the sceptical conclusions of P(D) under the stable model semantics. Without decisiveness, the result holds only in one direction (all defeasible consequences of D are included in all stable models of P(D)). If we wish a complete embedding for the general case, we need to use the Kunen semantics of P(D), instead.

Norm modifications in defeasible logic

This paper proposes a framework based on Defeasible Logic (DL) to reason about normative modifications. We show how to express them in DL and how the logic deals with conflicts between temporalised normative modifications. Some comments will be given with regard to the phenomenon of retroactivity.

Variants of temporal defeasible logics for modelling norm modifications

This paper proposes some variants of Temporal Defeasible Logic (TDL) to reason about normative modifications. These variants make it possible to differentiate cases in which, for example, modifications at some time change legal rules but their conclusions persist afterwards from cases where also their conclusions are blocked.

A Logic Framework of Normative-based Contract Management

We explore of the feasibility of the computationally oriented institutional agency framework proposed by Governatori and Rotolo testing it against an industrial strength scenario. In particular we show how to encode in defeasible logic the dispute resolution policy described in Article 67 of FIDIC.

Formalizing argumentative reasoning in a possibilistic logic programming setting with fuzzy unification

Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming (P-DeLP) is a logic programming language which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, incorporating the treatment of possibilistic uncertainty at the object-language level. In spite of its expressive power, an important limitation in P-DeLP is that imprecise, fuzzy information cannot be expressed in the object language. One interesting alternative for solving this limitation is the use of PGL+, a possibilistic logic over Gödel logic extended with fuzzy constants. Fuzzy constants in PGL+ allow expressing disjunctive information about the unknown value of a variable, in the sense of a magnitude, modelled as a (unary) predicate. The aim of this article is twofold: firstly, we formalize DePGL+, a possibilistic defeasible logic programming language that extends P-DeLP through the use of PGL+ in order to incorporate fuzzy constants and a fuzzy unification mechanism for them. Secondly, we propose a way to handle conflicting arguments in the context of the extended framework.

A Computational Framework for Institutional Agency

This paper provides a computational framework, based on Defeasible Logic, to capture some aspects of institutional agency. Our background is Kanger-Lindahl-P\"orn account of organised interaction, which describes this interaction within a multi-modal logical setting. This work focuses in particular on the notions of counts-as link and on those of attempt and of personal and direct action to realise states of affairs. We show how standard Defeasible Logic can be extended to represent these concepts: the resulting system preserves some basic properties commonly attributed to them. In addition, the framework enjoys nice computational properties, as it turns out that the extension of any theory can be computed in time linear to the size of the theory itself.

Strategic argumentation: A game theoretical investigation

Argumentation is modelled as a game where the payoffs are measured in terms of the probability that the claimed conclusion is, or is not, defeasibly provable, given a history of arguments that have actually been exchanged, and given the probability of the factual premises. The probability of a conclusion is calculated using a standard variant of Defeasible Logic, in combination with standard probability calculus. It is a new element of the present approach that the exchange of arguments is analysed with game theoretical tools, yielding a prescriptive and to some extent even predictive account of the actual course of play. A brief comparison with existing argument-based dialogue approaches confirms that such a prescriptive account of the actual argumentation has been almost lacking in the approaches proposed so far.

Proof Explanation in the DR-DEVICE System

Trust is a vital feature for Semantic Web: If users (humans and agents) are to use and integrate system answers, they must trust them. Thus, systems should be able to explain their actions, sources, and beliefs, and this issue is the topic of the proof layer in the design of the Semantic Web. This paper presents the design and implementation of a system for proof explanation on the Semantic Web, based on defeasible reasoning. The basis of this work is the DR-DEVICE system that is extended to handle proofs. A critical aspect is the representation of proofs in an XML language, which is achieved by a RuleML language extension.

Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through Argument Theory Change

Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs) is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework (AF) from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by handling dynamics of arguments of the AF, we might deal with the dynamics of knowledge of the underlying inconsistent KB. Dynamics of arguments has recently attracted attention and although some approaches have been proposed, a full axiomatization within the theory of belief revision was still missing. A revision arises when we want the argumentation semantics to accept an argument. Argument Theory Change (ATC) encloses the revision operators that modify the AF by analyzing dialectical trees-arguments as nodes and attacks as edges-as the adopted argumentation semantics. In this article, we present a simple approach to ATC based on propositional KBs. This allows to manage change of inconsistent KBs by relying upon classical belief revision, although contrary to it, consistency restoration of the KB is avoided. Subsequently, a set of rationality postulates adapted to argumentation is given, and finally, the proposed model of change is related to the postulates through the corresponding representation theorem. Though we focus on propositional logic, the results can be easily extended to more expressive formalisms such as first-order logic and description logics, to handle evolution of ontologies.