Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments

Abstract:One of the most difficult problems in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) involves representing the knowledge and beliefs of an agent which performs its tasks in a dynamic environment. New perceptions modify this agent’s current knowledge about the world, and consequently its beliefs about it also change. Such a revision and update process should be performed efficiently by the agent, particularly in the context of real-time constraints. In the last decade argumentation has evolved as a successful approach to formalize defeasible, commonsense reasoning, gaining wide acceptance in the MAS community by providing tools for designing and implementing features, which characterize reasoning capabilities in rational agents. In this paper we present a new argument-based formalism specifically designed for representing knowledge and beliefs of agents in dynamic environments, called Observation-based Defeasible Logic Programming (ODeLP). A simple but effective perception mechanism allows an ODeLP-based agent to model new incoming perceptions, and modify the agent’s knowledge about the world accordingly. In addition, in order to improve the reactive capabilities of ODeLP-based agents, the process of computing beliefs in a changing environment is made computationally attractive by integrating a “dialectical database” with the agent’s program, providing pre-compiled information about previous inferences. We present algorithms for managing dialectical databases as well as examples of their use in the context of real-world problems.

[1]  David Stuart Robertson,et al.  Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering , 2000, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[2]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Logic Programming Framework for Possibilistic Argumentation with Vague Knowledge , 2004, UAI.

[3]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  Logical models of argument , 2000, CSUR.

[4]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic , 2002 .

[5]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  A Comparison of ATMS and CSP Techniques , 1989, IJCAI.

[6]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On the Use of an ATMS for Handling Conflicting Desires , 2004, KR.

[7]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Distinguishing ground from nonground information in defeasible argumentation , 1995 .

[8]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Making argument systems computationally attractive: argument construction and maintenance , 1994 .

[9]  David A. McAllester Truth Maintenance , 1990, AAAI.

[10]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[12]  José Júlio Alferes,et al.  On Logic Program Semantics with Two Kinds of Negation , 1992, JICSLP.

[13]  Allen L. Brown Modal Propositional Semantics for Reason Maintenance Systems , 1985, IJCAI.

[14]  DungPhan Minh On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games , 1995 .

[15]  David Poole,et al.  On the Comparison of Theories: Preferring the Most Specific Explanation , 1985, IJCAI.

[16]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising It , 1991, KR.

[17]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Reasoning agents in dynamic domains , 2000 .

[18]  J. Dekleer An assumption-based TMS , 1986 .

[19]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Machines, New Frontiers in Argument and Computation , 2004, Argumentation Machines.

[20]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[21]  J. W. Lloyd,et al.  Foundations of logic programming; (2nd extended ed.) , 1987 .

[22]  John Wylie Lloyd,et al.  Foundations of Logic Programming , 1987, Symbolic Computation.

[23]  Charles Elkan,et al.  A Rational Reconstruction of Nonmonotonic Truth Maintenance Systems , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Volume 1 , 1989 .

[25]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[26]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Introduction to multiagent systems , 2001 .

[27]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Chapter 3 DECISION SUPPORT FOR PRACTICAL REASONING A Theoretical and Computational Perspective , 2008 .

[28]  Jon Doyle,et al.  A Truth Maintenance System , 1979, Artif. Intell..

[29]  P G rdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states , 1988 .

[30]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  Relating defeasible and normal logic programming through transformation properties , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[31]  John L. Pollock Taking perception seriously , 1997, AGENTS '97.

[32]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Belief Revision , 1995 .

[33]  Barbara Messing,et al.  An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems , 2002, Künstliche Intell..

[34]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[35]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  An Assumption-Based TMS , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[36]  Guillermo R. Simari,et al.  The Role of Dialectics in Defeasible Argumentation , 1994 .

[37]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Argumentation-based negotiation , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[38]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Modelling Agent Reasoning in a Logic Programming Framework for Possibilistic Argumentation , 2004 .

[39]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[40]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Building Problem Solvers , 1993 .