Results 1  10
of
218
A framework for argumentationbased negotiation
 Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL97), volume 1365 of LNAI
, 1998
"... Abstract. Many autonomous agents operate in domains in which the cooperation of their fellow agents cannot be guaranteed. In such domains negotiation is essential to persuade others of the value of cooperation. This paper describes a general framework for negotiation in which agents exchange propos ..."
Abstract

Cited by 235 (39 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Many autonomous agents operate in domains in which the cooperation of their fellow agents cannot be guaranteed. In such domains negotiation is essential to persuade others of the value of cooperation. This paper describes a general framework for negotiation in which agents exchange proposals backed by arguments which summarise the reasons why the proposals should be accepted. The argumentation is persuasive because the exchanges are able to alter the mental state of the agents involved. The framework is inspired by our work in the domain of business process management and is explained using examples from that domain. Keywords: Automated negotiation, Argumentation, Persuasion. 1
On the Complexity of Propositional Knowledge Base Revision, Updates, and Counterfactuals
 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
, 1992
"... We study the complexity of several recently proposed methods for updating or revising propositional knowledge bases. In particular, we derive complexity results for the following problem: given a knowledge base T , an update p, and a formula q, decide whether q is derivable from T p, the updated (or ..."
Abstract

Cited by 186 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study the complexity of several recently proposed methods for updating or revising propositional knowledge bases. In particular, we derive complexity results for the following problem: given a knowledge base T , an update p, and a formula q, decide whether q is derivable from T p, the updated (or revised) knowledge base. This problem amounts to evaluating the counterfactual p > q over T . Besides the general case, also subcases are considered, in particular where T is a conjunction of Horn clauses, or where the size of p is bounded by a constant.
Causes and explanations: A structuralmodel approach
 In Proceedings IJCAI01
, 2001
"... We propose a new definition of actual causes, using structural equations to model counterfactuals. We show that the definition yields a plausible and elegant account of causation that handles well examples which have caused problems for other definitions ..."
Abstract

Cited by 118 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a new definition of actual causes, using structural equations to model counterfactuals. We show that the definition yields a plausible and elegant account of causation that handles well examples which have caused problems for other definitions
Model Checking vs. Theorem Proving: A Manifesto
, 1991
"... We argue that rather than representing an agent's knowledge as a collection of formulas, and then doing theorem proving to see if a given formula follows from an agent's knowledge base, it may be more useful to represent this knowledge by a semantic model, and then do model checking to see if the g ..."
Abstract

Cited by 117 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We argue that rather than representing an agent's knowledge as a collection of formulas, and then doing theorem proving to see if a given formula follows from an agent's knowledge base, it may be more useful to represent this knowledge by a semantic model, and then do model checking to see if the given formula is true in that model. We discuss how to construct a model that represents an agent's knowledge in a number of different contexts, and then consider how to approach the modelchecking problem.
On the Logic of Merging
, 1998
"... This work proposes an axiomatic characterization of merging operators. It underlines the differences between arbitration operators and majority operators. A representation theorem is stated showing that each merging operator corresponds to a family of partial preorders on interpretations. Examples o ..."
Abstract

Cited by 112 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This work proposes an axiomatic characterization of merging operators. It underlines the differences between arbitration operators and majority operators. A representation theorem is stated showing that each merging operator corresponds to a family of partial preorders on interpretations. Examples of operators are given. They show the consistency of the axiomatic characterization. A new merging operator 4GMax is provided. It is proved that it is actually an arbitration operator. 1 Introduction In a growing number of applications, we face conflicting information coming from several sources. The problem is to reach a coherent piece of information from these contradicting ones. A lot of different merging methods have already been given [BI84, LMa, BKM91, BKMS92, Sub94]. Instead of giving one particular merging method we propose, in this paper, a characterization of such methods following the rationality of the postulates they satisfy. We shall call merging operators those meth...
Practical Applications of Constraint Programming
 CONSTRAINTS
, 1996
"... Constraint programming is newly flowering in industry. Several companies have recently started up to exploit the technology, and the number of industrial applications is now growing very quickly. This survey will seek, by examples, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 105 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Constraint programming is newly flowering in industry. Several companies have recently started up to exploit the technology, and the number of industrial applications is now growing very quickly. This survey will seek, by examples,
Reasoning about Information Change
, 1997
"... In this paper, we have combined techniques from epistemic and dynamic logic to arrive at a logic for describing multiagent information change. The key concept of dynamic semantics is that the meaning of an assertion is the way in which the assertion changes the information of the hearer. Thus a dyn ..."
Abstract

Cited by 95 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper, we have combined techniques from epistemic and dynamic logic to arrive at a logic for describing multiagent information change. The key concept of dynamic semantics is that the meaning of an assertion is the way in which the assertion changes the information of the hearer. Thus a dynamic epistemic semantics consist in a explicit formal definition of the information change potential of a sentence. We used these ideas to arrive at the system of Dynamic Epistemic Semantics, which is semantics for a language describing information change in a multiagent setting. This semantics proved useful for analyzing the Muddy Children paradox, and also for giving a semantics for knowledge programs, since it enabled us to model knowledge change by giving an explicit semantics to the triggers of the information change (the latter being the assertions made, or the messages sent). We feel that this is an important extension, since standard approaches to for example the Muddy Children (e.g. Fagin et al. 1995) generally use static epistemic logics like S5 to describe the situation before and after a certain epistemic event, leaving the transition between `before' and `after' to considerations in the metalanguage.
Plausibility Measures and Default Reasoning
 Journal of the ACM
, 1996
"... this paper: default reasoning. In recent years, a number of different semantics for defaults have been proposed, such as preferential structures, fflsemantics, possibilistic structures, and rankings, that have been shown to be characterized by the same set of axioms, known as the KLM properties. W ..."
Abstract

Cited by 79 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper: default reasoning. In recent years, a number of different semantics for defaults have been proposed, such as preferential structures, fflsemantics, possibilistic structures, and rankings, that have been shown to be characterized by the same set of axioms, known as the KLM properties. While this was viewed as a surprise, we show here that it is almost inevitable. In the framework of plausibility measures, we can give a necessary condition for the KLM axioms to be sound, and an additional condition necessary and sufficient to ensure that the KLM axioms are complete. This additional condition is so weak that it is almost always met whenever the axioms are sound. In particular, it is easily seen to hold for all the proposals made in the literature. Categories and Subject Descriptors: F.4.1 [Mathematical Logic and Formal Languages]:
The Logical Modelling of Computational MultiAgent Systems
, 1992
"... THE aim of this thesis is to investigate logical formalisms for describing, reasoning about, specifying, and perhaps ultimately verifying the properties of systems composed of multiple intelligent computational agents. There are two obvious resources available for this task. The first is the (largel ..."
Abstract

Cited by 60 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
THE aim of this thesis is to investigate logical formalisms for describing, reasoning about, specifying, and perhaps ultimately verifying the properties of systems composed of multiple intelligent computational agents. There are two obvious resources available for this task. The first is the (largely AI) tradition of reasoning about the intentional notions (belief, desire, etc.). The second is the (mainstream computer science) tradition of temporal logics for reasoning about reactive systems. Unfortunately, neither resource is ideally suited to the task: most intentional logics have little to say on the subject of agent architecture, and tend to assume that agents are perfect reasoners, whereas models of concurrent systems from mainstream computer science typically deal with the execution of individual program instructions. This thesis proposes a solution which draws upon both resources. It defines a model of agents and multiagent systems, and then defines two execution models, which ...