Collective decision-making process to compose divergent interests and perspectives

Transcription

1 Collective decision-making process to compose divergent interests and perspectives Maxime MORGE SMAC/LIFL/USTL Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #1

2 Motivation : a collective and arguable decison-making Social software= computer tools for collaboration in a group. Problem= support a collective decision-making. Requirement= a fair effect process : not to aggregate individual preferences (vote); to compose divergent interests and perspectives (debate). Collective decision= multi-actors process complex reasoning of actors collaborative process outcome of individual actions Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #2

3 Motivation : a collective and arguable decison-making Social software= computer tools for collaboration in a group. Problem= support a collective decision-making. Requirement= a fair effect process : not to aggregate individual preferences (vote); to compose divergent interests and perspectives (debate). Collective decision= multi-actors process autonomous agent complex reasoning of actors cognitive agent collaborative process social agent outcome of individual actions framework for interaction Goal : multi-agents formalization of such a decision Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #2

4 Approach : dialectics Dialectics = design the formal area in which the argumentation process take place. Title Motivation Dialectics Argumentation Agents Dialectics system Conclusion References A dialectics system [Hamblin70] = a set of participants who assert arguable hypothesis. the commitment stores of participants, i.e data types to record commitment during dialogue. a convention, i.e. a collaborative structure to communicate. A dialogue [Walton95] = initial situation sequence of moves goal of dialogue Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #3

5 DIAL: a framework for inter-agents dialogue Title Motivation Dialectics Argumentation Agents Dialectics system Conclusion References Dialectics = design the formal area in which the argumentation process take place. Framework for inter-agents dialogue A dialectics multi-agents system = a set of participants who assert arguable hypothesis. Manage conflicts the commitment stores of participants, i.e data types to record commitment during dialogue. Reason together a convention, i.e. a collaborative structure to communicate. flexible and refined process A dialogue = initial situation sequence of moves goal of dialogue Warrant to reach an agreement Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #3

6 Value-based argumentation logic: manage conflicts = Argumentative theory V v 1 v 6 v 5 v 4 v 3 T r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 6 : current_pres(bush) r 5 : weak(kerry) r 4 : silly(bush) r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #4

7 Value-based argumentation logic: manage conflicts 1 = Argumentative theory of the agent #1 1 V T v 1 v 6 v 5 v 4 v 3 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 6 : current_pres(bush) r 5 : weak(kerry) r 4 : silly(bush) r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #4

8 Value-based argumentation logic: manage conflicts 1 = Argumentative theory of the agent #1 1 V T v 1 v 6 v 5 v 4 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 6 : current_pres(bush) r 5 : weak(kerry) r 4 : silly(bush) v 3 r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) A 1 conclusion(a 1 ) = pres(bush) Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #4

9 Value-based argumentation logic: manage conflicts 1 = Argumentative theory of the agent #1 1 V T v 1 v 6 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 6 : current_pres(bush) v 5 r 5 : weak(kerry) A 2 r 4 : silly(bush) v 4 v 3 r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) A 1 conclusion(a 2 ) = pres(bush) Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #4

10 Value-based argumentation logic: manage conflicts 1 = Argumentative theory of the agent #1 1 V T v 1 v 6 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 6 : current_pres(bush) v 5 r 5 : weak(kerry) A 2 v 4 r 4 : silly(bush) B v 3 r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) A 1 conclusion(a 3 ) = pres(kerry) Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #4

11 Value-based argumentation logic: manage conflicts 1 = Argumentative theory of the agent #1 1 V T v 1 v 6 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 6 : current_pres(bush) v 5 r 5 : weak(kerry) A 2 v 4 r 4 : silly(bush) B v 3 r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) A 1 relation of attack Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #4

12 Value-based argumentation logic: manage conflicts 1 = Argumentative theory of the agent #1 1 V T v 1 v 6 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 6 : current_pres(bush) v 5 r 5 : weak(kerry) A 2 v 4 r 4 : silly(bush) B v 3 r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) A 1 relation of defeat Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #4

13 Value-based argumentation logic: manage conflicts 1 = Argumentative theory of the agent #1 1 V T v 1 v 6 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 6 : current_pres(bush) v 5 r 5 : weak(kerry) A 2 v 4 r 4 : silly(bush) B v 3 r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) A 1 acceptability Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #4

14 Value-based argumentation logic: manage conflicts 2 = Argumentative theory of the agent #2 2 V T v 1 v 3 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) v 4 r 4 : silly(bush) B v 5 r 5 : weak(kerry) A 2 v 6 r 6 : current_pres(bush) A 1 Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #4

15 Argumentative agents: reason together 2 = Extended argumentative theory of the agent #2 2 V2 T2 v 1 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) 1 {pres(bush) } = CS 2 1 A v 3 r 3 (x) : pres(x) current_pres(x) v 4 r 4 : silly(bush) B v 5 r 5 : weak(kerry) A 2 v 6 r 6 : current_pres(bush) A 1 3 {pres(kerry) } = CS 2 3 B Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #5

16 Dialectics system: warrant to reach an agreement Witness wit Vwit Twit v 1 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) v wit init pres(kerry) A weak(kerry) A 2 v wit part pres(kerry) B init V init T init T part V part part v 1 r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) r 11 : pres(bush) pres(kerry) v 1 Initiator v 5 r 5 (x) : weak(kerry) A 2 B r 4 : silly(bush) v 4 v init part pres(kerry) B A pres(kerry) v part init A 2 weak(kerry) Partner question "pres(kerry) " assert "pres(kerry) " assert " pres(kerry) " challenge " pres(kerry) " assert "r 5,r 22 (kerry)" challenge "weak(kerry) " withdraw "weak(kerry) " Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #6

17 Conclusions Title Motivation Dialectics Argumentation Agents Dialectics system Conclusion References DIAL : A formal framework for inter-agents dialogue Formalization of an arguable and collective decision-making Model of reasoning, i.e. value-based argumentation logic Manage conflicts Model of argumentative agents, i.e. a model of social agents Reason together Dialectics multi-agents system, i.e. a formal area to arbitrate Warrant to reach an agreement Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #7

18 References [Searle69] J.R. Searle. Speech Acts : An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Title Motivation Dialectics Argumentation Agents Dialectics system Conclusion References [FIPA02] [Ito97] [AMP01] [Dung95] FIPA TC C. Fipa acl communicative act library specification. Component, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, Takayuki Ito and Toramatsu Shintani. Persuasion among agents : An approach to implementing a group decision support system based on multi-agent negociation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 97). Morgan Kaufmann, Leila Amgoud and Simon Parsons. Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In Proc. of the International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell., 77(2): , [Amgoud02] Leila Amgoud and Claudette Cayrol. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Maths and AI, 34(1-3): , [Capon03] [Kakas02] T.J.M Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argument frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3): , Antonis C. Kakas and Pavlos Moraïtis. Argumentative agent deliberation, roles and context. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 70. Elsevier, [Schroeder02] Michael Schroeder Ralf Schweimeier. Notions of attack and justified arguments for extended logic programs. In F. van Harmelen, editor, Proc. of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI02), pages , Amsterdam, IOS Press. [Hamblin70] Charles L. Hamblin. Fallacies. Methuen, [Callon81] Michel Callon and Pierre Lascoumes and Yannick Barthe. Agir dans un monde incertain, ed. Seuil [Prakken00] Henry Prakken. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In M. Ojeda-Aciego, I.P.d. Guzman, G. Brewka, and L.M. Pereira, editors, Proc. of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2000), number 1919 in Lecture Notes in AI, pages Springer Verlag, [Labrie03] Marc-André Labrie, Brahim Chaib-draa, and Nicolas Maudet. Diagal: A tool for analyzing and modelling commitment-based dialogues between agents. In Y. Xiang and B. Chaib-draa, editors, Proc. of the 16th Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2671 of LNAI, pages , Halifax, juin Springer-Verlag. [Walton95] D. Walton and E. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. SUNY Press, Maxime Morge ADMW05 - slide #8