TRAVOS: Trust and Reputation in the Context of Inaccurate Information Sources
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning
ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?
Fundamenta Informaticae - Deontic Logic in Computer Science
Pro-active monitoring of electronic contracts
CAiSE'03 Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Advanced information systems engineering
Argumentation in bayesian belief networks
ArgMAS'04 Proceedings of the First international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Subjective logic and arguing with evidence
Artificial Intelligence
Managing Sensors and Information Sources Using Semantic Matchmaking and Argumentation
CIA '07 Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on Cooperative Information Agents XI
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Few existing argumentation frameworks are designed to deal with probabilistic knowledge, and none are designed to represent possibilistic knowledge, making them unsuitable for many real world domains. In this paper we present a subjective logic based framework for argumentation which overcomes this limitation. Reasoning about the state of a literal in this framework can be done in polynomial time. A dialogue game making use of the framework and a utility based heuristic for playing the dialogue game are also presented. We then show how these components can be applied to contract monitoring. The dialogues that emerge bear some similarity to the dialogues that occur when humans argue about contracts, and our approach is highly suited to complex, partially observable domains with fallible sensors where determining environment state cannot be done for free.