Multi-Party Persuasion : a Paraconsistent Approach

• Autorzy: Dunin-Kęplicz B. , Powała A.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3233/FI-2018-1640

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Some conflicts appearing in multi-agent settings may be resolved via communication. In this paper, besides conflicts of opinions, paradigmatically resolved by a persuasion dialogue, we study semantically deeper conflicts reaching to motivations of opinions. This investigation led us to discerning deep persuasion dialogues aiming at the resolution of conflicting motivations of opinions. In our overall research program we focus on realistic modeling of agency. This includes a proper representation of agents' ignorance and inconsistencies, appearing in their informational stance. Therefore, our formal framework TalkLOG, designed to provide and embed different forms of dialogues, employs a 4-valued logic with two additional logical values, unknown and inconsistent. Within TalkLOG soundness and completeness of persuasion was proved by comparing the outcomes of the persuasion dialogues performed by n-agents with the outcomes obtained by merging knowledge of these n agents. In this context the key point was a proper construction of this merge operator. Another critical issue is complexity of agents' communication, which is typically interleaved with reasoning in the context of multi-agent or autonomous systems. In TalkLOG tractability of both aspects is obtained thanks to the implementation tool: rule-based 4-valued query language 4QL.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

conflict resolution; multi-party dialogue; nonmonotonic reasoning; paraconsistent reasoning; persuasion

• Wydawca: IOS Press
• Czasopismo: Fundamenta Informaticae
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 158, nr 1/3
• Strony: 1--39
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 36 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Dunin-Kęplicz B.

• Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw, Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Poland

autor

Powała A.

• Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw, Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Poland

Bibliografia

• [1] Walton D, Krabbe E. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (NY), 1995. ISBN-10:079142586X, 13:978-0791425862.
• [2] Prakken H. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 2006; 21(2):163-188. doi:10.1017/S0269888906000865.
• [3] Parsons S, Wooldridge M, Amgoud L. Properties and Complexity of Some Formal Inter-agent Dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2003;13(3):347-376. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/13.3.347.
• [4] Bonzon E, Maudet N. On the Outcomes of Multiparty Persuasion. In: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, volume 7543 of LNCS, Springer, 2012, pp. 86-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_6.
• [5] Kontarinis D, Bonzon E, Maudet N, Moraitis P. Regulating Multiparty Persuasion with Bipolar Arguments: Discussion and Examples. In: Modèles Formels de l’interaction (MFI’11). 2011.
• [6] Prakken H. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 2010;1(2):93-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19462160903564592.
• [7] Takahashi T, Sawamura H. A Logic of Multiple-Valued Argumentation. In: AAMAS. IEEE Computer Society, 2004 pp. 800-807. ISBN-1-58113-864-4.
• [8] Vitória A, Małuszyński J, Szałas A. Modeling and Reasoning with Paraconsistent Rough Sets. Fundamenta Informaticae, 2009;97(4):405-438. doi:10.3233/FI-2009-209.
• [9] Dunin-Keplicz B, Strachocka A. Tractable Inquiry in Information-Rich Environments. In: Yang Q, Wooldridge M (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25-31, 2015. AAAI Press, 2015 pp. 53-60. ISBN-978-1-57735-738-4.
• [10] Dunin-Kęplicz B, Strachocka A. Paraconsistent Multi-party Persuasion in TalkLOG. In: Chen Q, Torroni P, Villata S, Hsu J, Omicini A (eds.), PRIMA 2015: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, volume 9387 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer 2015, pp. 265-283. International Publishing. ISBN-978-3-319-25523-1.
• [11] Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D. Dialogues About the Burden of Proof. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL ’05. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2005 pp. 115-124.
• [12] Prakken H. Models of Persuasion Dialogue. In: Simari G, Rahwan I (eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Springer US. 2009, pp. 281-300. ISBN-978-0-387-98196-3.
• [13] Coste-Marquis S, Devred C, Konieczny S, Lagasquie-Schiex M, Marquis P. On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell., 2007;171(10-15):730-753. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.012.
• [14] FIPA, 2002. http://www.fipa.org/.
• [15] Cohen PR, Levesque HJ. Performatives in a Rationally Based Speech Act Theory. In: Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 1990, pp. 79-88.
• [16] Fisher M. Representing and Executing Agent-Based Systems. In: Proceedings of the ECAI- 94Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages. 1994, pp. 307-324.
• [17] Singh MP. A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Agent Communication Languages. Springer-Verlag, 2000 pp. 31-45. ISBN-978-3-540-41144-4.
• [18] Dignum F, van Linder B. Modelling Social Agents: Communication as Action. 1996 pp. 205-218.
• [19] Colombetti M. A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Languages and Conversational Policies. 2000, pp. 21-29. ISSN-0926-2644.
• [20] Chopra AK, Artikis A, Bentahar J, Colombetti M, Dignum F, Fornara N, Jones AJI, Singh MP, Yolum P. Research directions in agent communication. ACM TIST, 2013;4(2):20. doi:10.1145/2438653.2438655.
• [21] Ciampolini A, Lamma E, Mello P, Toni F, Torroni P. Cooperation and competition in ALIAS: a logic framework for agents that negotiate. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 2003;37(1-2):65-91. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020259411066.
• [22] Małuszyński J, Szałas A. Living with Inconsistency and Taming Nonmonotonicity. In: Datalog Reloaded, volume 6702 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag. 2011, pp. 384-398.
• [23] Traum D. Issues in Multiparty Dialogues. Advances in Agent Communication, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24608-4_12.
• [24] Dignum F, Vreeswijk G. Towards a Testbed for Multi-party Dialogues. In: Dignum F (ed.), Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, volume 2922 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2003, pp. 212-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24608-4_13.
• [25] Austin JL. How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press, Oxford, second edition, 1975. Edited by J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisa.
• [26] Searle J, Vanderveken D. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
• [27] Prakken H. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2005;15:1009-1040. doi:10.1093/logcom/exi046.
• [28] Dunin-Kęplicz B, Strachocka A, Szałas A, Verbrugge R. Paraconsistent semantics of speech acts. Neurocomputing, 2015;151(2):943-952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2014.10.001.
• [29] Dunin-Kęplicz B, Verbrugge R. Teamwork in Multi-Agent Systems: A Formal Approach. Wiley, Chichester, 2010. ISBN-10:0470699884, 13:978-0470699881.
• [30] Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U. Computational social choice. Multiagent systems. 2012, pp. 213-283.
• [31] Alferes JJ, Brogi A, Leite JA, Pereira LM. Evolving Logic Programs. In: Proceedings of JELIA 2002, volume 2424 of LNCS. Springer. 2002, pp. 50-61.
• [32] Lorkiewicz W, Kowalczyk R, Katarzyniak R, Vo QB. On topic selection strategies in multi-agent naming game. In: Sonenberg L, Stone P, Tumer K, Yolum P (eds.), 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, May 2-6, 2011, Volume 1-3. IFAAMAS. 2011, pp. 499-506. ISBN-978-0-9826571-5-7.
• [33] Dunin-Kęplicz B, Strachocka A. Perceiving Rules under Incomplete and Inconsistent Information. In: Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, volume 8143 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2013, pp. 256-272. ISBN-978-3-642-40623-2.
• [34] Dunin-Kęplicz B, Szałas A. Taming Complex Beliefs. Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence XI, volume of 8065 LNCS. 2013, pp. 1-21. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41776-4_1.
• [35] Dunin-Kęplicz B, Szałas A, Verbrugge R. Tractable Reasoning about Group Beliefs. In: EMAS 2014, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14484-9_17.
• [36] Kacprzak M, Dziubiński M, Budzyńska K. Strategies in Dialogues: A Game-Theoretic Approach. In: Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2014, volume 266 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, 2014 pp. 333-344. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-333.

Uwagi

1. Alina Powała (poprzednio Strachocka)

2. Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2018).