A Guardian Agent Approach to Safety in Medical Multi-agent Systems

  • S. Modgil
  • J. Fox
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4324)


We present an overview of current work on argumentation based reasoning to ensure safety in medical multi-agent systems. In particular, we describe deployment of a specialised Guardian agent engaging in argumentation based reasoning about safety, and argumentation based dialogues with other agents to cooperatively ensure that agent activities are safe. The work is being conducted as part of a project aiming at development of theoretical models of argumentation, and their implementation in software components for deployment in agent technologies. The project has established a medical multi-agent scenario requiring deployment of the Guardian agent. This scenario provides a focus both for theoretical work and the eliciting of technical requirements. In this paper we describe the scenario and discuss the theoretical issues being addressed.


Multiagent System Prefer Candidate Defeat Relation Cardiac Agent Plan Revision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alsinet, T., Ansótegui, C., Béjar, R., Fernández, C., Manyá, F.: Automated monitoring of medical protocols: a secure and distributed architecture. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 27(3), 367–392 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L.: A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 552–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fox, J., Das, S.: Safe and Sound. Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. AAAI Press, The MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: A framework for deliberation dialogues. In: Hansen, H.V., Tindale, C.W., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), Windsor, Ontario, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, R.P., Yule, P., Fox, J., Glasspool, D.W.: Modelling High-Level Cognitive Processes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proc. Second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 883–890. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J.: A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11(1), 113–131 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Georgeff, M., Pell, B., Pollack, M., Tambe, M., Wooldridge, M.: The belief-desire-intention model of agency. In: Proceedings of Agents, Theories, Architectures and Languages (ATAL)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Modgil, S.: Fractal argumentation and its application to decision making over actions. Submitted to the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2005 (July 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Modgil, S., Hammond, P.: Generating symbolic and natural language partial solutions for inclusion in medical plans. In: Quaglini, S., Barahona, P., Andreassen, S. (eds.) AIME 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2101, pp. 239–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norman, T.J., Carbogim, D.V., Krabbe, E.C.W., Walton, D.: Argument and multi-agent systems. In: Reed, C., Norman, T.J. (eds.) Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation, ch. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riao, D., Moreno, A., Valls, A.: Palliasys: Agent based palliative care. In: Ghidini, C., Giorgini, P., van der Hoek, W. (eds.) IEEE 4th Conf. on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA 2004), Budapest, Hungary (2004), EUMASGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Series in Logic and Language. Logic and Language. State University of New York Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Modgil
    • 1
  • J. Fox
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Computation LabCancer Research UK (CRUK)London

Personalised recommendations