Abstract not found

This article argues that the agent-based computational model permits a distinctive approach to social science for which the term “generative ” is suitable. In defending this terminology, features distinguishing the approach from both “inductive ” and “deductive ” science are given. Then, the following specific contributions to social science are discussed: The agent-based computational model is a new tool for empirical research. It offers a natural environment for the study of connectionist phenomena in social science. Agent-based modeling provides a powerful way to address certain enduring—and especially interdisciplinary—questions. It allows one to subject certain core theories—such as neoclassical microeconomics—to important types of stress (e.g., the effect of evolving preferences). It permits one to study how rules of individual behavior give rise—or “map up”—to macroscopic regularities and organizations. In turn, one can employ laboratory behavioral research findings to select among competing agent-based (“bottom up”) models. The agent-based approach may well have the important effect of decoupling individual rationality from macroscopic equilibrium and of separating decision science from social science more generally. Agent-based modeling offers powerful new forms of hybrid theoretical-computational work; these are particularly relevant to the study of non-equilibrium systems. The agentbased approach invites the interpretation of society as a distributed computational device, and in turn the interpretation of social dynamics as a type of computation. This interpretation raises important foundational issues in social science—some related to intractability, and some to undecidability proper. Finally, since “emergence” figures prominently in this literature, I take up the connection between agent-based modeling and classical emergentism, criticizing the latter and arguing that the two are incompatible. � 1999 John Wiley &

Argumentation is important for agent negotiation. In this paper, we develop an efficient framework for multi-agent argumentation. We identify aspects of classical argumentation theory that are suitable and useful for artificial agents and develop an argumentation framework around them. In the framework, we distinguish cooperation and argumentation and introduce skeptical and credulous agents. We develop an operational, goal-driven top-down proof procedure for the argumentation process and evaluate an implementation of our framework for an example of a BT business process.

This paper presents a logical analysis of a typical argument favoring the use of formal methods for software development, and suggests an alternative argument that is simpler and stronger than the typical one.

Recent research in design theory has sought to formalize the engineering design process without particular concern for the paradigm used to model design information. The authors propose that no correct formalization of the design process can be achieved without first formalizing the semantics of the information used in the process. To this end, the authors present a new formal theory of design information. The theory, called the Hybrid Model, is an extended form of axiomatic set theory, and relies on it for consistency and logical rigor. The theory is stated as a collection of axioms, using a standard logic notation. Design entities are modeled by formal units called objects. Generalized functions and relations are used to formalize important ordering schemes and abstraction mechanisms relevant to design, including classification by structure and by function, aggregation, specialization and generalization. The hybrid model is meant not only to aid in the study of the design process itself, but also to improve communications between designers, assist standardization of design specifications, and develop new, powerful software tools to aid the designer in his work.

The increased sensitivity of engineered products to external forces requires new computer-based design tools that can express the richness and complexity of product knowledge. This paper is a progress report of the author's research towards the development of such a knowledge-based design tool, called the Design Knowledge Specification Language (DKSL). A key goal is to ensure the maximum possible logical rigor. In order to do this, ontological commitments are constructed to map logical structures to the domain of design knowledge. The first part of the paper discusses a number of ontological commitments the author has discovered for design. The second part of the paper presents the current, incomplete implementation of DKSL. An example of the structural and steady-state thermal analysis of a wall is used to present DKSL's capabilities. Although much work remains to be done, it appears that DKSL may be able to accurately and rigorously describe any design knowledge. Keywords: ...

Extracting semantic relations among entities is an important first step in various tasks in Web mining and natural language processing such as information extraction, relation detection, and social network mining. A relation can be expressed extensionally by stating all the instances of that relation or intensionally by defining all the paraphrases of that relation. For example, consider the AC-QUISITION relation between two companies. An extensional definition of ACQUISITION contains all pairs of companies in which one company is acquired by another (e.g. (YouTube, Google) or (Powerset, Microsoft)). On the other hand we can intensionally define ACQUISITION as the relation described by lexical patterns such as X is acquired by Y, or Y purchased X, where X and Y denote two companies. We use this dual representation of semantic relations to propose a novel sequential co-clustering algorithm that can

Defeasible reasoning is concerned with the logics of non-deductive argument. As is described in the literature, the study of this type of reasoning is considerably more involved than the study of deductive argument, even so that, in realistic applications, there is often a lack of resources to perform an exhaustive analysis. It follows that, in a theory of defeasible reasoning, the order and direction in which arguments are developed, i.e. the procedure, is important. The aim of this article is to show that debate is the most efficient procedure to argue in the presence of limited resources. To do so, there is first some general theory on defeasible argumentation, which is followed by an introduction to the problem of dialectical search. The problem of dialectical search is (or at least, should be) the essential issue in every theory on argumentation, and emerges at every occasion that involves adjudication on competing arguments. Starting with an example, it is explained that dialecti...

Abstract not found

Abstract not found