Results 1 - 10
of
16
An Argumentation Engine: ArgTrust
"... Abstract. Argumentation is a well-studied formal model for multiagent interaction that supports exchange of information about agents ’ beliefs and reasons why agents hold their beliefs. We describe an argumentation engine, called ArgTrust, that we have implemented in Java, and explain how the underl ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 4 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Argumentation is a well-studied formal model for multiagent interaction that supports exchange of information about agents ’ beliefs and reasons why agents hold their beliefs. We describe an argumentation engine, called ArgTrust, that we have implemented in Java, and explain how the underlying logic formalism is translated into a computational framework. 1
Argtrust: decision making with information from sources of varying trustworthiness (Demo
- In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Autonomous agents and Multiagent Systems
"... This work aims to support decision making in situations where sources of information are of varying trustworthiness. Formal argumentation is used to capture the relationships between such information sources and conclusions drawn from them. A prototype implementation is demonstrated, applied to a pr ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 4 (4 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This work aims to support decision making in situations where sources of information are of varying trustworthiness. Formal argumentation is used to capture the relationships between such information sources and conclusions drawn from them. A prototype implementation is demonstrated, applied to a problem from military decision making.
(Social) Norm Dynamics
"... This chapter is concerned with the dynamics of social norms. In particular the chapter concentrates on the lifecycle that social norms go through, focusing on the generation of norms, the way that norms spread and stabilize, and finally evolve. We also discuss the cognitive mechanisms behind norm co ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 1 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This chapter is concerned with the dynamics of social norms. In particular the chapter concentrates on the lifecycle that social norms go through, focusing on the generation of norms, the way that norms spread and stabilize, and finally evolve. We also discuss the cognitive mechanisms behind norm compliance, the role of culture in norm dynamics, and the way that trust affects norm dynamics.
A Case for Argumentation to Enable Human-Robot Collaboration
"... Abstract. A case is made for logical argumentation as a means for en-abling true collaboration between human and robot partners. The ma-jority of human-robot systems involve interactions in which a human requests a robot to perform a task, and the robot reports its findings. The relationship between ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 1 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. A case is made for logical argumentation as a means for en-abling true collaboration between human and robot partners. The ma-jority of human-robot systems involve interactions in which a human requests a robot to perform a task, and the robot reports its findings. The relationship between human and robot is one in which the robot is subordinate, and all high-level decision making is performed by the hu-man. In contrast, when humans collaborate with each other, they inter-act in various relationships, some of which are subordinate, while others are truly collaborative. Successful instances of such relationships involve dialogue in which each party presents ideas, these are discussed, and a shared conclusion is agreed upon. This type of dialogue, which pro-motes dynamic exchange of ideas, does not exist in today’s human-robot systems. Indeed the primary focus in human-robot dialogue is on the method of delivery, while the content is typically chosen from scripted sequences. However, in order to enable human-robot partnerships, both parties must be able to participate in constructive dialogue where the content and sequence of utterances can adjust dynamically as the dis-cussion ensues. Argumentation is a method that can support such needs, as is demonstrated here. 1
Cognitive and Probabilistic Models of Group Decision Making
"... ABSTRACT: We introduce an experiment designed to study trade-offs in collaborative decision making environments such as the ability to accumulate information and its impact on the fluctuation of decisions. Two models of the experiment are presented: a cognitive model using the ACT-R cognitive archi ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
ABSTRACT: We introduce an experiment designed to study trade-offs in collaborative decision making environments such as the ability to accumulate information and its impact on the fluctuation of decisions. Two models of the experiment are presented: a cognitive model using the ACT-R cognitive architecture and a probabilistic argumentation model using Markov Random Fields. Representative results from the experiment are presented and compared to the results of the two models. Implications of the results and avenues for future work are discussed.
Towards Argumentation with Symbolic Dempster-Shafer Evidence
"... Abstract. This paper is concerned with the combination of argumentation with the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. In particular, we show how logical elements of evidence, associated with numerical degrees of belief, can be combined into arguments. 1. ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. This paper is concerned with the combination of argumentation with the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. In particular, we show how logical elements of evidence, associated with numerical degrees of belief, can be combined into arguments. 1.
Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Top-k Queries on Temporal Data
"... Abstract The database community has devoted extensive amount of efforts to indexing and querying temporal data in the past decades. However, insufficient amount of attention has been paid to temporal ranking queries. More precisely, given any time instance t, the query asks for the top-k objects at ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract The database community has devoted extensive amount of efforts to indexing and querying temporal data in the past decades. However, insufficient amount of attention has been paid to temporal ranking queries. More precisely, given any time instance t, the query asks for the top-k objects at time t with respect to some score attribute. Some generic indexing structures based on R-trees do support ranking queries on temporal data, but as they are not tailored for such queries, the performance is far from satisfactory. We present the Seb-tree, a simple indexing scheme that supports temporal ranking queries much more efficiently. The Seb-tree answers a top-k query for any time instance t in the optimal number of I/Os in expectation, namely, N k O(logB B B) I/Os, where N is the size of the data set and B is the disk block size. The index has near-linear size (for constant and reasonable kmax values, where kmax is the maximum value for the possible values of the query parameter k), can be constructed in near-linear time, and also supports insertions and deletions without affecting its query performance guarantee. Most of all, the Seb-tree is especially appealing in practice due to its simplicity as it uses the B-tree as the only building block. Extensive experiments on a number of large data sets, show that the Seb-tree is more than an order of magnitude faster than the R-tree based indexes for temporal ranking queries.
Some thoughts on using argumentation to handle trust
"... Abstract. This paper describes some of our recent work on using argumentation to handle information about trust. We first discuss the importance of trust in computer science in general and in multi-agent systems in particular. We then describe the setting of our work, situating it within the broad a ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. This paper describes some of our recent work on using argumentation to handle information about trust. We first discuss the importance of trust in computer science in general and in multi-agent systems in particular. We then describe the setting of our work, situating it within the broad area of work on trust. Next we provide an overview of two lines of work we are currently pursuing — using argumentation to reason about which individuals to trust, and using argumentation to relate sources of information to conclusions drawn from information provided by those sources. Finally, we outline our current initiatives and briefly highlight other work that is closely related to ours. 1 Why trust is important Trust is a mechanism for managing the uncertainty about autonomous entities and the information they deal with. As a result, trust can play an important role in any decentralized system. As computer systems have become increasingly distributed, and control in those systems has become more decentralized, trust has become an increasingly more important concept in computer science [3, 12].
Firewall configuration: . . . metalevel argumentation
"... Firewalls are an important tool in the provision of network security. Packet filtering firewalls are configured by providing a set of rules that identify how to handle individual data packets that arrive at the firewall. In large firewall configurations, conflicts may arise between these rules. Ar ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
Firewalls are an important tool in the provision of network security. Packet filtering firewalls are configured by providing a set of rules that identify how to handle individual data packets that arrive at the firewall. In large firewall configurations, conflicts may arise between these rules. Argumentation provides a way of handling such conflicts that illuminates their origin, and hence can help a system administrator understand the effects of a given configuration. We look in particular at the use of a system of metalevel argumentation for firewall configuration, showing how it makes conflicts and their origins especially clear, and showing how different instantiations of a metalevel argumentation system provide alternative ways to resolve conflicts.
Probabilistic Argumentation
, 2015
"... work contained in this document has been submitted in support of an application for a degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institution of learning. All verbatim extracts have been distinguished by quotation marks, and all sources of information have been specifically ackn ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
work contained in this document has been submitted in support of an application for a degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institution of learning. All verbatim extracts have been distinguished by quotation marks, and all sources of information have been specifically acknowledged. Signed: Date: 2015 Argumentation-based reasoning is a promising approach to automated reasoning. It benefits from its ability to handle incomplete and inconsistent information. Uncertainty widely exists in knowl-edge bases and affects automated reasoning systems. Thus reasoning under uncertainty is a major challenge for automated reasoning. Argumentation-based reasoning is also affected by uncer-tainty. In particular, in many real world situations such as intelligence analysis, completeness, inconsistency and uncertainty coexist in the information available for automated reasoning sys-tems, exacerbating the challenging for automated reasoning. Therefore allowing uncertainty in argumentation-based reasoning is of particular importance.
