Knowledge Improvement and Diversity under Interaction-Driven Adaptation of Learned Ontologies

When agents independently learn knowledge, such as ontologies, about their environment, it may be diverse, incorrect or incomplete. This knowledge heterogeneity could lead agents to disagree, thus hindering their cooperation. Existing approaches usually deal with this interaction problem by relating ontologies, without modifying them, or, on the contrary, by focusing on building common knowledge. Here, we consider agents adapting ontologies learned from the environment in order to agree with each other when cooperating. In this scenario, fundamental questions arise: Do they achieve successful interaction? Can this process improve knowledge correctness? Do all agents end up with the same ontology? To answer these questions, we design a two-stage experiment. First, agents learn to take decisions about the environment by classifying objects and the learned classifiers are turned into ontologies. In the second stage, agents interact with each other to agree on the decisions to take and modify their ontologies accordingly. We show that agents indeed reduce interaction failure, most of the time they improve the accuracy of their knowledge about the environment, and they do not necessarily opt for the same ontology.

[1]  Cássia Trojahn,et al.  Argumentation for Reconciling Agent Ontologies , 2011 .

[2]  Howard S. Burkom,et al.  Methods Paper: Bayesian Information Fusion Networks for Biosurveillance Applications , 2009, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[3]  Santiago Ontañón,et al.  A Case-Based Approach to Mutual Adaptation of Taxonomic Ontologies , 2012, ICCBR.

[4]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[5]  Kemo ADRIAN,et al.  Argumentation on Meaning: a Semiotic Model for Contrast Set Alignment , 2019, JOWO.

[6]  Santiago Ontañón,et al.  Coordinated inductive learning using argumentation-based communication , 2015, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[7]  Luc Steels,et al.  Experiments in cultural language evolution , 2012 .

[8]  Minming Li,et al.  Truthful Mechanisms for Multi Agent Self-interested Correspondence Selection , 2019, SEMWEB.

[9]  Michel Dumontier,et al.  Chemical Hazard Estimation and Method Comparison with OWL-Encoded Toxicity Decision Trees , 2011, OWLED.

[10]  Jérôme Euzenat Interaction-based ontology alignment repair with expansion and relaxation , 2017, IJCAI.

[11]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems , 1993, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[12]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Induction of Decision Trees , 1986, Machine Learning.

[13]  Liliane Pellegrin,et al.  Using decision fusion methods to improve outbreak detection in disease surveillance , 2019, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[14]  Marco Schorlemmer,et al.  An interaction-based approach to semantic alignment , 2012, J. Web Semant..

[15]  D. Ruta,et al.  An Overview of Classifier Fusion Methods , 2000 .

[16]  N. R. Jennings,et al.  To appear in: Int Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation GDN2000 Keynote Paper Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges , 2022 .

[17]  Frank Dignum,et al.  ANEMONE: an effective minimal ontology negotiation environment , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[18]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Agent Ontology Alignment Repair through Dynamic Epistemic Logic , 2020, AAMAS.

[19]  Eric H. Y. Lau,et al.  Optimizing Use of Multistream Influenza Sentinel Surveillance Data , 2008, Emerging infectious diseases.

[20]  Valentina A. M. Tamma,et al.  Negotiating over ontological correspondences with asymmetric and incomplete knowledge , 2014, AAMAS.

[21]  Michael Rovatsos,et al.  Aligning Experientially Grounded Ontologies Using Language Games , 2015, GKR.

[22]  Enric Plaza,et al.  An Approach to Interaction-Based Concept Convergence in Multi-Agent Systems , 2017, JOWO.