Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
184 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

An Interleaving Semantics of the Timed Concurrent Language for Argumentation to Model Debates and Dialogue Games (2306.07675v2)

Published 13 Jun 2023 in cs.AI

Abstract: Time is a crucial factor in modelling dynamic behaviours of intelligent agents: activities have a determined temporal duration in a real-world environment, and previous actions influence agents' behaviour. In this paper, we propose a language for modelling concurrent interaction between agents that also allows the specification of temporal intervals in which particular actions occur. Such a language exploits a timed version of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks to realise a shared memory used by the agents to communicate and reason on the acceptability of their beliefs with respect to a given time interval. An interleaving model on a single processor is used for basic computation steps, with maximum parallelism for time elapsing. Following this approach, only one of the enabled agents is executed at each moment. To demonstrate the capabilities of language, we also show how it can be used to model interactions such as debates and dialogue games taking place between intelligent agents. Lastly, we present an implementation of the language that can be accessed via a web interface. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (51)
  1. James F. Allen. Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commun. ACM, 26(11):832–843, 1983.
  2. Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In ECAI 2000, Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, Germany, August 20-25, 2000, pages 338–342. IOS Press, 2000.
  3. Aristotle. Topics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1928. Ross, W. D. trans. (original work c. 350 B.C.).
  4. Analysis of empirical results on argumentation-based dialogue to support shared decision making in a human-robot team. In 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2016, New York, NY, USA, August 26-31, 2016, pages 861–866. IEEE, 2016.
  5. An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 26(4):365–410, 2011.
  6. Satisfiability modulo theories. In Armin Biere, Marijn Heule, Hans van Maaren, and Toby Walsh, editors, Handbook of Satisfiability - Second Edition, volume 336 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 1267–1329. IOS Press, 2021.
  7. Verification in incomplete argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell., 264:1–26, 2018.
  8. Timed soft concurrent constraint programs. In Proc. of COORDINATION 2008 - 10th International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages, volume 5052 of LNCS, pages 50–66. Springer, 2008.
  9. Timed concurrent language for argumentation. In Proc. of CILC 2021 - 36th Italian Conference on Computational Logic, volume 3002 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 1–15. CEUR-WS.org, 2021.
  10. S. Bistarelli and C. Taticchi. A concurrent language for argumentation. In Proc. of AI33{}^{3}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 2020 - 4th Workshop on Advances In Argumentation In Artificial Intelligence, co-located with AIxIA 2020 - 19th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, volume 2777 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 75–89. CEUR-WS.org, 2020.
  11. S. Bistarelli and C. Taticchi. Introducing a tool for concurrent argumentation. In Proc. of JELIA 2021 - 17th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, volume 12678 of LNCS, pages 18–24. Springer, 2021.
  12. Timed concurrent language for argumentation: An interleaving approach. In PADL, volume 13165 of LNCS, pages 101–116. Springer, 2022.
  13. A concurrent language for modelling arguing agents. Argument & Computation (to appear), 2023.
  14. Abstract dialectical frameworks. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference, KR 2010, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 9-13, 2010. AAAI Press, 2010.
  15. Modeling time and valuation in structured argumentation frameworks. Inf. Sci., 290:22–44, 2015.
  16. Process calculi for coordination: From linda to javaspaces. In Proc. of AMAST 2000 - 8th International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, volume 1816 of LNCS, pages 198–212. Springer, 2000.
  17. M. Caminada. On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In Proc. of JELIA 2006 - 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, volume 4160 of LNCS, pages 111–123. Springer, 2006.
  18. M. Caminada. Semi-stable semantics. In Proc. of COMMA 2006 - 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, volume 144 of Front. Artif. Intell. Appl., pages 121–130. IOS Press, 2006.
  19. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 8th European Conference, ECSQARU 2005, Barcelona, Spain, July 6-8, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3571 of LNCS, pages 378–389. Springer, 2005.
  20. On admissibility in timed abstract argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of ECAI 2010 - 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 215 of Front. Artif. Intell. Appl., pages 1007–1008. IOS Press, 2010.
  21. A timed concurrent constraint language. Inf. Comput., 161(1):45–83, 2000.
  22. A timed linda language and its denotational semantics. Fundam. Informaticae, 63(4):309–330, 2004.
  23. Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell., 77(2):321–358, 1995.
  24. Argumentation strategies for plan resourcing. In Proc. of AAMAS 2011 - 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 913–920. IFAAMAS, 2011.
  25. PDDL2.1: an extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 20:61–124, 2003.
  26. Strategic argumentation. FLAP, 8(6):1679–1748, 2021.
  27. C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM, 21(8):666–677, 1978.
  28. N. Mann and A. Hunter. Argumentation using temporal knowledge. In Proc. of COMMA 2008 - 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, volume 172 of Front. Artif. Intell. Appl., pages 204–215. IOS Press, 2008.
  29. Dynamic argumentation in abstract dialogue frameworks. In Proc. of ArgMAS 2010 - 7th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Revised, Selected and Invited Papers, volume 6614 of LNCS, pages 228–247. Springer, 2010.
  30. Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 261–280. Springer, 2009.
  31. A dialogue game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst., 7(3):235–273, 2003.
  32. R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems, volume 92 of LNCS. Springer, 1980.
  33. Sanjay Modgil. Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell., 173(9-10):901–934, 2009.
  34. Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: From an abstract davis–putnam–logemann–loveland procedure to DPLL(T). J. ACM, 53(6):937–977, 2006.
  35. Information sharing for natural resources management. Presented at EUMAS 2013 - 11th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, 2013.
  36. A temporal argumentation approach to cooperative planning using dialogues. J. Log. Comput., 28(3):551–580, 2018.
  37. Amir Pnueli. The temporal logic of programs. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 31 October - 1 November 1977, pages 46–57. IEEE Computer Society, 1977.
  38. Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: Supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches. Int. J. Approx. Reason., 93:487–543, 2018.
  39. Henry Prakken. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Log. Comput., 15(6):1009–1040, 2005.
  40. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif. Intell. Law, 6(2-4):231–287, 1998.
  41. Extensive-form argumentation games. In EUMAS, pages 312–322, 2005.
  42. Quantitative argumentation debates with votes for opinion polling. In PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems - 20th International Conference, Nice, France, October 30 - November 3, 2017, Proceedings, volume 10621 of LNCS, pages 369–385. Springer, 2017.
  43. Argumentation and game theory. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 321–339. Springer, 2009.
  44. An abstract argumentation framework for handling dynamics. In Proc. of the Argument, Dialogue and Decision Workshop in NMR 2008, pages 131–139, 2008.
  45. Foundations of timed concurrent constraint programming. In Proc. of LICS 1994 - 9th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 71–80. IEEE Computer Society, 1994.
  46. Timed default concurrent constraint programming. J. Symb. Comput., 22(5/6):475–520, 1996.
  47. V. A. Saraswat and M. Rinard. Concurrent constraint programming. In Proc. of POPL 1990 - 17th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 232–245. ACM Press, 1990.
  48. Matthias Thimm. Strategic argumentation in multi-agent systems. Künstliche Intell., 28(3):159–168, 2014.
  49. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY press, 1995.
  50. Michael J. Wooldridge. Introduction to multiagent systems. Wiley, 2002.
  51. A computer game for abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA07), 2007.
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now