Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we present the argument-based model proCLAIM, intended to provide a setting for heterogeneous agents to deliberate over safety critical actions. To achieve this purpose proCLAIM features a Mediator Agent with three main tasks: (1) guiding the participating agents in what their valid dialectical moves are at each stage of the dialogue; (2) deciding whether submitted arguments should be accepted on the basis of their relevance; and finally, (3) evaluating the accepted arguments in order to provide an assessment of whether the proposed action should or should not be undertaken. The main focus in this paper is the proposal of a set of reasoning patterns, represented in terms of argument schemes and critical questions, intended to automatise deliberations on whether a proposed action can safely be performed. We aim to motivate the importance of these schemes and critical questions for: (a) the Mediator Agent’s guiding task that allows for a highly focused deliberation; (b) the effective participation of heterogeneous agents; and (c) enabling the reuse of previous similar deliberations in order to evaluate arguments on an evidential basis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aamodt A., Plaza E. (1994) Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. Artificial Intelligence Communications 7(1): 39–59

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., & Cayrol, C. (1998). On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In Proceedings of the fourteenth conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 1998) (pp. 1–7). Madison, WI.

  3. Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T., McBurney P. (2005) Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2): 157–206

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2005). A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. In Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11, 153–171.

  5. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & Modgil, S. (2006). Argumentation for decision support. In Database and expert systems applications (pp. 822–831). Berlin: Springer.

  6. Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bench-Capon T. J. M., Dunne P. E. (2007) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 619–641

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Bench-Capon, T., & Prakken, H. (2010). Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bentahar J., Moulin B., Bélanger M. (2010) A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation. Artificial Intelligence Review 33(3): 211–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., & Chaib-draa, B. (2005). Specifying and implementing a persuasion dialogue game using commitments and arguments. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 130–148). Berlin: Springer.

  11. Black, E., & Atkinson, K. (2009). Dialogues that account for different perspectives in collaborative argumentation. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (Vol. 2, pp. 867–874). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.

  12. Black, E., & Atkinson, K. (2010). Agreeing what to do. In ArgMAS 2010 (p. 1. Estoril, Portugal.

  13. Cartwright D., Atkinson K. (2009) Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24(5): 42–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chalamish, M., & Kraus, S. (2007). AutoMed: An automated mediator for bilateral negotiations under time constraints. In Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (p. 248). New York: ACM.

  15. Chesnevar, C. I., Simari, G. R., & Godo, L. (2005). Computing dialectical trees efficiently in possibilistic defeasible logic programming. In Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning (pp. 158–171). Berlin: Springer.

  16. Cortés, U., & Poch, M. (Eds.). (2009). Advanced agent-based environmental management systems. Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies and Autonomic Computing. Basel: Birkhäuser/Springer.

  17. Dung P. M. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Dung P. M., Mancarella P., Toni F. (2007) Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 642–674

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaines, B. R., Norrie, D. H., & Lapsley, A. Z. (2002). Mediator: An intelligent information system supporting the virtual manufacturing enterprise. In Systems, man and cybernetics, 1995. IEEE international conference on Intelligent systems for the 21st century (Vol. 1, pp. 964–969). New York: IEEE.

  20. Gärdenfors P. (1988) Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. MIT Press/A Bradford Book, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Georgeff M. P., & Lansky, A. L. (1987). Reactive reasoning and planning. In AAAI (pp. 677–682). Seattle, WA.

  22. Gordon T. F., Prakken H., Walton D. (2007) The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 875–896

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. (2009). Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In 12th international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 137–146). New York: ACM.

  24. Isern, D., Sánchez, D., & Moreno, A. (2010). Agents applied in health care: A review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(3), 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kauffman H. M., McBride M. A., Delmonico F. L. (2000) First report of the United Network for Organ Sharing Transplant Tumor Registry: Donors with a history of cancer. Transplantation 70(12): 1747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kok, E. M., Meyer, J. J. C., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2010). A formal argumentation framework for deliberation dialogues. In ArgMAS 2010 (p. 73). Berlin: Springer.

  27. Lopez-Navidad A., Caballero F. (2003) Extended criteria for organ acceptance. Strategies for achieving organ safety and for increasing organ pool. Clinical Transplantation 17(4): 308–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Marelli D., Laks H., Bresson S., Ardehali A., Bresson J., Esmailian F., Plunkett M., Moriguchi J., Kobashigawa J. (2003) Results after transplantation using donor hearts with preexisting coronary artery disease. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 126(3): 821–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mbarki, M., Bentahar, J., & Moulin, B. (2007). Specification and complexity of strategic-based reasoning using argumentation. Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 142–160). Berlin: Springer.

  30. McBurney P., Hitchcock D., Parsons S. (2007) The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1): 95–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McBurney P., Parsons S. (2002) Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 315–343

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. McBurney P., Van Eijk R. M., Parsons S., Amgoud L. (2003) A dialogue game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7(3): 235–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Modgil S. (2009) Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9-10): 901–934

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Modgil, S., & Fox, J. (2009). A guardian agent approach to safety in medical multi-agent systems. In Safety and security in multiagent systems (pp. 67–79). Berlin: Springer.

  35. Oikarinen, E., & Woltran, S. (2010). Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2010). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  36. Oliva E., McBurney P., Omicini A., Viroli M. (2010) Argumentation and artifacts for negotiation support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence 4(S10): 90

    Google Scholar 

  37. Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Sklar, E., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 47–62). Berlin: Springer.

  38. Prakken H. (2005) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of logic and computation 15(6): 1009

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Prakken H. (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(2): 163–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rahwan, I., Banihashemi, B., Reed, C., Walton, D., & Abdallah, S. (to appear). Representing and classifying arguments on the semantic web. The Knowledge Engineering Review.

  41. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., & Sonenberg, L. (2004). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review. In press.

  42. Rahwan, I., & Simari G. R. (2009) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin: Springer, Incorporated.

  43. Reed, C., Norman, T. J. (eds) (2004) Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Reed C., Rowe G. (2004) Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13(4): 983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Reed C., Wells S. (2007) Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22: 60–65

    Google Scholar 

  46. Reed, C., Wells, S., Devereux, J., & Rowe, G. (2008). Aif+: Dialogue in the argument interchange format. In Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Computational models of argument (COMMA 2008) (pp. 311–323). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

  47. Searle J. R. (2003) Rationality in action. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  48. Shen W., Maturana F., Norrie D. H. (2000) MetaMorph II: An agent-based architecture for distributed intelligent design and manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 11(3): 237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sierra, C., Jennings, N. R., Noriega, P., & Parsons, S. (1998). A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In M. P. Singh, A. Rao, & M. J. Wooldridge (Eds.), Intelligent agents IV: Agent theories, architectures, and languages. 4th International ATAL Workshop. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 1365 (pp. 177–192). Berlin: Springer.

  50. Simoff, S., Sierra, C., & De Mántaras, R. L. (2008). Requirements towards automated mediation agents. In Pre-proceedings of the KR2008-workshop on Knowledge representation for agents and multi-agent systems, Sydney, September 2008 (p. 171). Citeseer.

  51. Tolchinsky, P., Atkinson, K., McBurney, P., Modgil, S., & Cortés, U. (2007). Agents deliberating over action proposals using the proclaim model. In CEEMAS (pp. 32–41). Leipzig, Germany.

  52. Tolchinsky, P., Aulines, M., Cortes, U., & Poch, M. (2009). Deliberation over the safety of industrial wastewater discharges into wastewater treatment plants. In Advanced agent-based environmental management systems. Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies and Autonomic Computing (Chap. 2, pp. 37–60). Basel: Birkhäuser/Springer.

  53. Tolchinsky, P., Cortes, U., & Grecu, D. (2008). Argumentation-based agents to increase human organ availability for transplant. In Agent Technology and e-Health. Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies and Autonomic Computing (Chap. 3, pp. 65–93). Basel: Birkhäuser/Springer.

  54. Tolchinsky P., Cortés U., Modgil S., Caballero F., López-Navidad A. (2006) Increasing human-organ transplant availability: Argumentation-based agent deliberation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(6): 30–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tolchinsky, P., Cortés, U., Nieves, J. C., Caballero, F., & López-Navidad, A. (2005). Using arguing agents to increase the human organ pool for transplantation. In 3rd workshop on Agents applied in health care (IJCAI-05). Edinburgh, UK.

  56. Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Atkinson, K., McBurney, P., & Cortés, U. (2011). Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions. Technical report, Technical University of Catalonia, 2011. http://www.lsi.upc.edu/~tolchinsky/publications/techReport2011.pdf.

  57. Tolchinsky P., Modgil, S., & Cortés, U. (2006). Argument schemes and critical questions for heterogeneous agents to argue over the viability of a human organ. In AAAI 2006 SS Series; Argumentation for consumers of healthcare (pp. 105–111). Stanford AAAI Press.

  58. Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Cortés, U., & Sànchez-Marrè, M. (2006). CBR and argument Schemes for collaborative decision making. In COMMA, Vol. 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (pp. 71–82). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

  59. Vázquez-Salceda J., Cortés U., Padget J., López-Navidad A., Caballero F. (2003) The organ allocation process: A natural extension of the CARREL Agent-Mediated Electronic Institution. AiCommunications 3(16): 153–165

    Google Scholar 

  60. Verheij B. (2003) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence Law 11(2-3): 167–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Walton D. N. (1996) Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  62. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of inter-personal reasoning. SUNY Series in Logic and language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

  63. Wyner, A., & Bench-Capon, T. (2007). Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In Proceeding of the 2007 Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference (pp. 139–149). Ios Press.

  64. Zink S., Smolen H., Catalano J., Marwin V., Wertlieb S. (2005) NATCO, the organization for transplant professionals public policy statement. HIV-to-HIV transplantation. Progress in transplantation (Aliso Viejo, CA) 15(1): 86

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Knowledge Engineering and Machine Learning Group, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

    Pancho Tolchinsky & Ulises Cortés

  2. Department of Informatics, King’s College, London, UK

    Sanjay Modgil

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Katie Atkinson & Peter McBurney

  4. Department de Llenguatges i Sistemes Informàtics, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya UPC, c/Jordi Girona, 1 & 3, Edifici Omega, 08034, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

    Pancho Tolchinsky & Ulises Cortés

Authors
  1. Pancho Tolchinsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanjay Modgil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katie Atkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter McBurney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ulises Cortés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pancho Tolchinsky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Atkinson, K. et al. Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 25, 209–259 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-011-9174-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-011-9174-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation