Advertisement

Implementing Argumentation-Enabled Empathic Agents

  • Timotheus KampikEmail author
  • Juan Carlos Nieves
  • Helena Lindgren
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11450)

Abstract

In a previous publication, we introduced the core concepts of empathic agents as agents that use a combination of utility-based and rule-based approaches to resolve conflicts when interacting with other agents in their environment. In this work, we implement proof-of-concept prototypes of empathic agents with the multi-agent systems development framework Jason and apply argumentation theory to extend the previously introduced concepts to account for inconsistencies between the beliefs of different agents. We then analyze the feasibility of different admissible set-based argumentation semantics to resolve these inconsistencies. As a result of the analysis, we identify the maximal ideal extension as the most feasible argumentation semantics for the problem in focus.

Keywords

Agent architectures Agent-oriented software engineering Argumentation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. This work was partially supported by the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Albrecht, S.V., Stone, P.: Autonomous agents modelling other agents: a comprehensive survey and open problems. Artif. Intell. 258, 66–95 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alsinet, T., Chesnevar, C.I., Godo, L., Simari, G.R.: A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: formalization and logical properties. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 159(10), 1208–1228 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berariu, T.: An argumentation framework for BDI agents. In: Zavoral, F., Jung, J., Badica, C. (eds.) Intelligent Distributed Computing VII. SCI, vol. 511, pp. 343–354. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01571-2_40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, E., Atkinson, K.: Choosing persuasive arguments for action. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 3, pp. 905–912. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F.: BDI agent programming in agentspeak using Jason. In: Toni, F., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3900, pp. 143–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11750734_9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christman, J.: Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2018 edn. (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coplan, A.: Will the real empathy please stand up? A case for a narrow conceptualization. South. J. Philos. 49(s1), 40–65 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fatima, S., Rahwan, I.: Negotiation and bargaining. In: Weiss, G. (ed.) Multiagent Systems, 2nd edn, pp. 143–176. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013). Chap. 4Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kampik, T., Nieves, J.C., Lindgren, H.: Coercion and deception in persuasive technologies. In: 20th International TRUST Workshop (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kampik, T., Nieves, J.C., Lindgren, H.: Towards empathic autonomous agents. In: 6th International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS 2018), Stockholm, July 2018Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Panisson, A.R., Meneguzzi, F., Vieira, R., Bordini, R.H.: An approach for argumentation-based reasoning using defeasible logic in multi-agent programming languages. In: 11th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multiagent Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Panisson, A.R., Sarkadi, S., McBurney, P., Parson, S., Bordini, R.H.: Lies, bullshit, and deception in agent-oriented programming languages. In: 20th International TRUST Workshop, Stockholm (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rahwan, I.: Argumentation among agents. In: Weiss, G. (ed.) Multiagent Systems, 2nd edn, pp. 177–210. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013). Chap. 5Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sen, S., Crawford, C., Rahaman, Z., Osman, Y.: Agents for social (media) change. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2018), Stockholm (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thimm, M.: Tweety - a comprehensive collection of java libraries for logical aspects of artificial intelligence and knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2014), Vienna, Austria (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Umeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations