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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Armstrong, D.M.: A Materialist Theory of the Mind. Routledge, London (1968)
Kolbel, M.: Truth WithoutObjectivity. Routledge, London (2002)
Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: An Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 45(2), 321–340 (2007)
Black, E., Hunter, A.: A generative inquiry dialogue system. In: Proc. of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 1–8 (2007)
Booth, R.F.: On the Logic of Iterated Non-prioritised Revision. In: Kern-Isberner, G., Rödder, W., Kulmann, F. (eds.) WCII 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3301, pp. 86–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Broome, J.: The Unity of Reasoning? Spheres of Reason 1(9), 62–93 (2009)
Capobianco, M., Chesnevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation and the dynamics of warranted beliefs in changing environments. J. AAMAS 11(2), 127–151 (2005)
Cohen, A., GarcĂa, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Backing and Undercutting in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In: Lukasiewicz, T., Sali, A. (eds.) FoIKS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7153, pp. 107–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
da Costa Pereira, C., Tettamanzi, A.G.B., Villata, S.: Changing one’s mind: Erase or rewind? possibilistic belief revision with fuzzy argumentation based on trust. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 164–171 (2011)
Delgrande, J., Jin, Y.: Parallel belief revision: Revising by sets of formulas. J. AI (2011)
Dragoni, A.F., Giorgini, P.: Distributed belief revision. J. AAMAS 6(2), 115–143 (2003)
Falappa, M.A., Garcia, A.J., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G.R.: On the evolving relation between Belief Revision and Argumentation. Knowledge Engineering Review 26(1), 35–43 (2011)
Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(2), 95–138 (2004)
Hansson, S.O., Ferme, E.L., Cantwell, J., Falappa, M.A.: Credibility limited revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1581–1596 (2001)
Liau, C.J.: Belief, information acquisition, and trust in multi-agent systems: a modal logic formulation. J. AI 149(1), 31–60 (2003)
Ma, J., Liu, W., Benferhat, S.: A belief revision framework for revising epistemic states with partial epistemic states. In: AAAI 2010, pp. 333–338 (2010)
McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents. J. of Logic, Lang. and Inf. 11(3), 315–334 (2002)
Menzies, T.: Applications of abduction: knowledge-level modelling. Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies 45(3), 305–335 (1996)
Modgil, S.: An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 648–659 (2007)
Modgil, S., Luck, M.: Argumentation Based Resolution of Conflicts between Desires and Normative Goals. In: Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P. (eds.) ArgMAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5384, pp. 19–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Paglieri, F., Castelfranchi, C.: Revising Beliefs Through Arguments: Bridging the Gap Between Argumentation and Belief Revision in MAS. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 78–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)
Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In: Proc. of ArgMAS, pp. 74–90 (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Saffar, M.T., Taghiyareh, F., Salehi, S., Badie, K. (2012). An Argumentation-Based Approach to Cooperative Multi-source Epistemic Conflict Resolution. In: Timm, I.J., Guttmann, C. (eds) Multiagent System Technologies. MATES 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7598. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33690-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33690-4_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33689-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33690-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)