An argumentation-based approach to cooperative multi-source epistemic conflict resolution

Authors:
Mohammad Taghi Saffar;Fattaneh Taghiyareh;Sajjad Salehi;Kambiz Badie
Affiliations:
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran;School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran;School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran;Department of IT, Iran Telecommunication Research Center, Tehran, Iran
Venue:
MATES'12 Proceedings of the 10th German conference on Multiagent System Technologies
Year:
2012

Citing 19
Cited 0

Applications of abduction: knowledge-level modelling

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents

Journal of Logic, Language and Information
Distributed Belief Revision

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems: a modal logic formulation

Artificial Intelligence
Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
An argumentation based approach for practical reasoning

AAMAS '06 Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
An argumentation based approach for practical reasoning

AAMAS '06 Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation

Journal of Logic and Computation
An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
A generative inquiry dialogue system

Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
An Abstract Theory of Argumentation That Accommodates Defeasible Reasoning About Preferences

ECSQARU '07 Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
Argumentation Based Resolution of Conflicts between Desires and Normative Goals

Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Review: on the evolving relation between belief revision and argumentation

The Knowledge Engineering Review
Parallel belief revision: Revising by sets of formulas

Artificial Intelligence
Revising beliefs through arguments: bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS

ArgMAS'04 Proceedings of the First international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
On the logic of iterated non-prioritised revision

WCII'02 Proceedings of the 2002 international conference on Conditionals, Information, and Inference
Backing and undercutting in abstract argumentation frameworks

FoIKS'12 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems
Changing one's mind: erase or rewind? possibilistic belief revision with fuzzy argumentation based on trust

IJCAI'11 Proceedings of the Twenty-Second international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume Volume One

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

An epistemic conflict is a situation when an agent receives a piece of information in contradiction with its own beliefs. To resolve conflicts, agents need to reason about how to update their beliefs regarding that conflict. In this paper we propose a deep cooperative multi-source epistemic conflict resolution method based on a version of preference-based argumentation. This method is based on the idea that the conflict resolution process should find the root cause of the conflict and the strength of some arguments shouldn't be sensitive to their providers' reputation. Our method formalizes several kinds of belief acquisition methods (e.g. deduction, communication and perception) and their sources and then uses it to provide arguments to support other arguments. It decides preference of some arguments by measuring their source reliability. It also enables the collaboration of other agents in the argumentation process.