Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 779–798 | Cite as

An ontological-based knowledge-representation formalism for case-based argumentation



In open multi-agent systems, agents can enter or leave the system, interact, form societies, and have dependency relations with each other. In these systems, when agents have to collaborate or coordinate their activities to achieve their objectives, their different interests and preferences can come into conflict. Argumentation is a powerful technique to harmonise these conflicts. However, in many situations the social context of agents determines the way in which agents can argue to reach agreements. In this paper, we advance research in the computational representation of argumentation frameworks by proposing a new ontological-based, knowledge-representation formalism for the design of open MAS in which the participating software agents are able to manage and exchange arguments with each other taking into account the agents’ social context. This formalism is the core of a case-based argumentation framework for agent societies. In addition, we present an example of the performance of the formalism in a real domain that manages the requests received by the technicians of a call centre.


Agreement technologies Argumentation Multi-agent systems 



This work is supported by the Spanish government grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, TIN2011-27652-C03-01, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO II/2013/019].


  1. Amgoud, L. (2005). An argumentation-based model for reasoning about coalition structures. In 2nd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, argmas-05(pp. 1–12). Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Amgoud, L., Dimopolous, Y., Moraitis, P. (2007). A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In 6th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-07. IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, K., & Bench-Capon, T. (2008). Abstract argumentation scheme frameworks. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence: methodology, systems and applications, AIMSA-08, lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 5253, pp. 220–234). Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Aulinas, M., Tolchinsky, P., Turon, C., Poch, M., Cortés, U. (2012). Argumentation-based framework for industrial wastewater discharges management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(2), 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bench-Capon, T., & Atkinson, K. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence, chap. abstract argumentation and values (pp. 45–64). Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bench-Capon, T., & Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 97–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulling, N., Dix, J., Chesñevar, C.I. (2008). Modelling coalitions: ATL + argumentation. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-08 (Vol. 2, pp. 681–688). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diaz-Agudo, B., & Gonzalez-Calero, P.A. (2007). Ontologies: A handbook of principles, concepts and applications in information systems, integrated series in information systems, chap. an ontological approach to develop knowledge intensive cbr systems (Vol. 14, pp. 173–214). Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Dung, P.M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and N -person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O., Michel, F. (2004). From agents to organizations: An organizational view of multi-agent systems. In Agent-oriented software engineering VI, LNCS (Vol. 2935, pp. 214–230.) Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Hadidi, N., Dimopolous, Y., Moraitis, P. (2010). Argumentative alternating offers. In 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-10 (pp. 441–448). IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  13. Heras, S., Atkinson, K., Botti, V., Grasso, F., Julián, V., McBurney, P. (2010). How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-10, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (Vol. 216, pp. 267–274). IOS Press.Google Scholar
  14. Heras, S., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2011). On a computational argumentation framework for agent societies. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 123–140). Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Heras, S., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2012). Argument-based agreements in agent societies. Neurocomputing, 75(1), 156–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2013). Argue to agree: A case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1), 82–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordán, J., Heras, S., Julián, V. (2011). A customer support application using argumentation in multi-agent systems. In 14th international conference on information fusion (FUSION-11) (pp. 772– 778).Google Scholar
  18. Karunatillake, N.C. (2006). Argumentation-based negotiation in a social context. Ph.D. thesis, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R., Rahwan, I., McBurney, P. (2009). Dialogue games that agents play within a society. Artificial Intelligence, 173(9-10), 935–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104, 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. López de Mántaras, R., McSherry, D., Bridge, D., Leake, D., Smyth, B., Craw, S., Faltings, B., Maher, M.L., Cox, M., Forbus, K., Keane, M., Watson, I. (2006). Retrieval, reuse, revision, and retention in CBR. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luck, M., & McBurney, P. (2008). Computing as interaction: Agent and agreement technologies. In IEEE international conference on distributed human-machine systems. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  23. Oliva, E., McBurney, P., Omicini, A. (2008). Co-argumentation artifact for agent societies. In 5th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, Argmas-08 (pp. 31–46). Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2007). Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In 7th international conference on agents and multi-agent systems, AAMAS-07. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2009). Argumentation-based information exchange in prediction markets. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems, LNAI (vol. 5384, pp. 181–196). Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1, 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. (2005). Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL-05 (pp. 115–124). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sierra, C., Botti, V., Ossowski, S. (2011). Agreement computing. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz  10.1007/s13218-010-0070-y.
  30. Soh, L.K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A real-time negotiation model and a multi-agent sensor network implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wardeh, M., Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.P. (2008). PISA - pooling information from several agents: Multiplayer argumentation from experience. In Proceedings of the 28th SGAI international conference on artificial intelligence, AI-2008 (pp. 133–146). Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Wardeh, M., Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.P. (2009). PADUA: A protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. AI and Law, 17(3), 183–215.Google Scholar
  34. Wardeh, M., Coenen, F., Bench-Capon, T. (2010). Arguing in groups. In 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-10 (pp. 475–486). IOS Press.Google Scholar
  35. Willmott, S., Vreeswijk, G., Chesñevar, C., South, M., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format for multi-agent systems. In 3rd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMAS-06 (pp. 17–34). Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Wyner, A., & Schneider, J. (2012). Arguing from a point of view. In Proceedings of the first international conference on agreement technologies.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y ComputaciónUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations