how to get paidgroups.di.unipi.it/~morge/publis/morge08emse_show.pdf · [morge, icc’07] [morge et...
TRANSCRIPT
How to get PAID ?June 2008.
Maxime Morge
Università di Pisa
Practical Applications of Argumentation and Multiagent Systemsfor Semantics Integration in Distributed Environment
June 2008. Page 1 wwww.argugrid.eu
Introduction
Motivations and challenges
Requirement for application softwares in a global, complex, interconnected,and dynamic environments (services, industries, . . . )
Reusabilty, Interoperability, Flexibility, Adaptation.
Efficiency, Autonomy, Intelligence, Scalability.
Reliability, Fault-tolerance, Robustness, Security, Trust.
Argumentation support
DIAL
Debate support
[Morge, ICC’07] [Morge et al, EUMAS’07] [Morge et al, AISB’07]
June 2008. Page 2 wwww.argugrid.eu
Introduction
Conflicts resolution for muliagent programming
Our multiagent systems are composed of proactive agents (eco./logic.)within distributed environments (social, physical) interacting eachother (with ACL) in accordance with norms (contracts).
Conflicts arise in:• ontologies i.e.concepts hierarchies;
• agent state-of-mind, i.e.beliefs, goals, decisions;
• agent’s mind, i.e.the behaviour;
• coordination,i.e.the negotiation.
Conflicts resolution:• heterogeneous descriptions[Morge et al, AO07]
• epistemic/practical reasoning[Morge, AIL06],[Morge ArgMAS 07]
• dialectical agent architecture[Morge et al, JFSMA’08]
• dispute resolution [Morge, AIL06][Morge et al, EUMAS’07]
June 2008. Page 3 wwww.argugrid.eu
Introduction
Outline
Introduction
ARGUGRID
Agent reasoning [Morge ArgMAS 07]
Negotiation [Morge et al, EUMAS’07]
Conclusion and future works
June 2008. Page 4 wwww.argugrid.eu
ARGUGRID
ARGUmentation as a foundation for the semantic GRID
Provide a new model for argumentative agents populating andevolving within a trusted grid.Provide a new model for the specification, creation, operation anddissolution of Virtual Organizations over the grid usingargumentation.Design an architecture for the semantic grid to support argumentativeagents and VOs.Develop a grid-based platform to support the implementation ofmodels and architecture and assess the approach.Experiment with and evaluate the models, architecture and platform inthe context of concrete applications for e-business.
June 2008. Page 5 wwww.argugrid.eu
ARGUGRID
Global Picture of the ARGUGRID platform
June 2008. Page 6 wwww.argugrid.eu
ARGUGRID
EO Scenario: oil spill detection case [ARGUGRID D1.2]
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
��������������������
������������������������������
������������������������������
������������������������
������������������������
VO
Client #1
Provider #1
Provider #3 Provider #4
Provider #2
Images Images
Postprods Postprods
June 2008. Page 7 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning
Outline
Introduction
ARGUGRID
Agent reasoning [Morge ArgMAS 07]
Negotiation [Morge et al, EUMAS’07]
Conclusion and future works
June 2008. Page 8 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Semantics
Assumption-based argumentation for multi-criteria
decision making [Morge ArgMAS 07]
A B
C D
Which contract ?
The service d provided by Provider #1.
Why not the service c?
Since it’s too expensive.
Why not Provider #2 ?
Since Provider #2 will overcharge the price.
Decision analysis (influence diagrams).
Logic language (goals/decisions/beliefs).
User’s preferences (priorities/utilities/uncertainty).
Suggested decisions (credulous semantics).
Procedure implementation (http://margo.sourceforge.net).
June 2008. Page 9 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Decision Analysis
A model of multi-criteria decision problems with
incomplete knowledge
good_deal
supplier provision
rcost rqos cost qos
Proposal(x , y)
price(y)resolution(y)will(x , do)
Test(tid , x , done)
type(tid , tp)
int(tid , i)
time(tid , t)
June 2008. Page 10 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Decision framework
Knowledge, Goals, Decisions, and Priority
A decision framework is a tuple D = 〈L,Asm, I , T , P 〉, where:
L is the language which captures the state-of-mind(goals/decisions/beliefs);
Asm, is a set of literals which are taken for granted if there is noevidence to the contrary, called assumptions;
I is the incompatibility relation, i.e. a binary relation whichcaptures the conflicts between the statements;
T is the theory which gathers goal/decision/epistemic rules;
P ⊆ T ×T is a preorder, called the priority relation, which captures
the uncertainty of beliefs,
the priority amongst goals,
and the expected utilities of the decisions.
June 2008. Page 11 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Decision framework
Goal rules, decision rules, and epistemic rules
T
r1(tid): will(x , do)← Test(tid , x , do), type(tid , neutral), int(tid , i), time(tid , t)r2(tid): will(x , do)← Test(tid , x , do), type(tid , tp), int(tid , direct), time(tid , t)r′1(tid): will(x , do)← Test(tid , x , do), type(tid , concurrent), int(tid , i), time(tid , t)r′2(tid): will(x , do)← Test(tid , x , do), type(tid , tp), int(tid , observed), time(tid , t)f1: Test(Observer #11, Provider #2,¬overcharge)f2: Test(Observer #11, Provider #2,¬underquality)f3: type(Observer #11, neutral)f4: time(Observer #11, 1)f5: Test(Client #21, Provider #2, overcharge)f6: Test(Client #21, Provider #2, underquality)f7: type(Client #21, concurrent)f8: time(Client #21, 1)f9: Test(Client #11, Provider #1, overcharge)f10: Test(Client #11, Provider #1,¬underquality)f11: type(Client #11, neutral)f12: int(Client #11, direct)f13: time(Client #11, 3)f14: Test(Observer #12, Provider #1,¬overcharge)f15: Test(Observer #12, Provider #1, underquality)f16: type(Observer #12, neutral)f17: time(Observer #12, 2)f18: price(d, high)f19: resolution(d, low)f20: price(c, low)f21: resolution(c, high)f22: price(e, low)f23: resolution(e, low)f24: price(f, high)f25: resolution(f, high)
T
r012: good_deal← supplier, provision
r134: supplier← rcost, rqos
r256: provision← cost, qos
r01: good_deal← supplier
r13: supplier← rcost
r25: provision← cost
r02: good_deal← provision
r14: supplier← rqos
r26: provision← qos
T
r31 : rcost← Proposal(x , y), will(x ,¬overcharge)r41 : rqos← Proposal(x , y), will(x ,¬underquality)r51 : cost← Proposal(x , y), price(y , low)r62 : qos← Proposal(x , y), resolution(y , high)r52 : cost← Proposal(x , y), price(y , high)r61 : qos← Proposal(x , y), resolution(y , low)
June 2008. Page 12 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Arguments
Rebutting and undermining attacks
Rebutting attack between conflicting conclusions:
The service d is a good deal because it is cheap;
The service c is not a good deal because it is a mess.
good_deal ¬good_deal
S(Provider #2, c)
cheap
S(Provider #2, c)
unreliable
June 2008. Page 13 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Arguments
Rebutting and undermining attacks
Undermining attack toward non-provable assumptions:
The service c is a good deal because it is cheap and
it is not provable that it is a mess;
The service c is a mess.
unreliablegood_deal
S(Provider #2, c) not unreliable S(Provider #2, c)
June 2008. Page 13 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Arguments
The strengths of arguments
Qualitative or quantitative preferences, s.a.:
the likelihood of beliefs.the priority amongst goals.the expected utililies of decisions.
good_deal
cheap
S(Provider #2, d)
¬good_deal
unreliable
S(Provider #2, c)
≤
Defeat
June 2008. Page 14 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Proof procedure
Dialectical enquiry of MARGO
A
June 2008. Page 15 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Proof procedure
Dialectical enquiry of MARGO
A B
June 2008. Page 15 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Proof procedure
Dialectical enquiry of MARGO
A B C
June 2008. Page 15 wwww.argugrid.eu
Agent reasoning Proof procedure
Dialectical enquiry of MARGO
A B C
A (procedural) dialectical proof procedure:
⇔ declarative model-theoretic semantic (soundness/completeness);
interleaves arguments construction/dispute (efficiency);
with game rule (turn-taking, burden of proof, backtraking);
preference relaxation, assumptions (strategy).
June 2008. Page 15 wwww.argugrid.eu
Negotiation
Outline
Introduction
ARGUGRID
Agent reasoning [Morge ArgMAS 07]
Negotiation [Morge et al, EUMAS’07]
Conclusion and future works
June 2008. Page 16 wwww.argugrid.eu
Negotiation Agent Architecture
A Modular Architecture of Service Oriented Agents
IMQ OMQ IEQ OEQ
IKB ALSKB PL
CM
IDMM SDMM SIM
GUI
PIM
Module
Other agents andregistry
Interaction with externalities
Module reads data
Module reads/writes data
Data
June 2008. Page 17 wwww.argugrid.eu
Negotiation VO formation
Life-cycle of VOs [ARGUGRID D3.2]
phase sub-phases tasks implementation
Formation Initiation goal identification GUI, CM, IDMMpartner discovery SDMM, PIM, CM
Configuration partner selection SDMMestablish roles SDMM, SIMnegotiation SDMM, SIM, CM
Operation execution KDE, GRIAreformation MAS
reportage MAS, GRIAmonitoring GRIA
Dissolution reportage GRIAevaluation IDMM, SDMM, MAS
June 2008. Page 18 wwww.argugrid.eu
Negotiation Social Interaction
Dialogue for conflicts explanation
Client #1 Provider #2
question(good_deal, S(y), ∅)
assert(good_deal, S(d), ∅)
assert(good_deal, S(c), ∅)
why(good_deal, S(c), ∅)
assert(cost, S(c), price(c , 20))
assert(cost, S(e), price(c , 20))
accept(good_deal, S(e), ∅)
June 2008. Page 19 wwww.argugrid.eu
Negotiation Social Interaction
Negotiation protocol for the requester
evaluatecontract
challengeevaluate
send question
send assert
receive assert
receive assert
receive assert
receive whyreceive accept
send assert
send accept
send why
receive withdraw
send withdraw
June 2008. Page 20 wwww.argugrid.eu
Negotiation Social Interaction
A LCC Protocol for Negotiation of services
Lightweight Coordination Calculus:
boot strap mechanism protocol/role/participants;
pre/post conditions to prompt/update the decison/commitments;
write once-execute everywhere.
a(requester(G,D,K,Ag2),AID)::=question(G , D, K) ⇒ a(provider(G , D, K), Ag2) then
assert(G , D, K) ⇐ a(provider(G , D, K), Ag2) then
a(evaluator(G , D, K), AID).
a(evaluator(G,D,K,Ag2),AID)::=accept(G , D, K) ⇒ a(interlocutor(G , D, K), Ag2)← acceptable(G , D, K)or
(assert(G , D2, K) ⇒ a(interlocutor(G , D, K), Ag2)← counter(G , D, K , D2) then
a(interlocutor(G , D2, K), AID))or
(why(G , D, K) ⇒ a(interlocutor(G , D, K), Ag2)← question(G , D, K) then
(assert(G2, D, K2) ⇐ a(interlocutor(G , D, K), Ag2) then
a(evaluator(G2, D, K2), AID)) or
withdraw ⇐ a(interlocutor(G , D, K), Ag2)).
a(provider(G,D,K),Ag2)::=question(G , D, K) ⇐ a(requestor(G , D, K , Ag2), AID) then
assert(G , D, K) ⇒ a(requestor(G , D, K , Ag2), AID)← offer(G , D, K) then
a(interlocutor(G , D, K), Ag2).
a(interlocutor(G,D,K),Ag2)::=accepted(G , D, K) ←accept(G , D, K) ⇐ a(evaluator(G , D, K , Ag2), AID)or
(assert(G , D2, K) ⇐ a(evaluator(G , D, K , Ag2), AID) then
a(evaluator(G , D2, K), Ag2))or
(why(G , D, K) ⇐ a(evaluator(G , D, K , Ag2), AID) then
(assert(G2, D, K2) ⇒ a(evaluator(G , D, K , Ag2), AID)← counter(G , D, K , G2, K2) then
a(interlocutor(G2, D, K2), Ag2)) or
withdraw ⇒ a(evaluator(G , D, K , Ag2), AID)).
June 2008. Page 21 wwww.argugrid.eu
Negotiation Bilateral concession
Acceptability space of participants
After M3 At the end
bSb(d)
b
Sb(c)
priceb
resolutionb
Client #1
Provider #2bSb(d)×Sb(d)
×
Sb(c)bcb
Sb(e)
priceb
resolutionb
Client #1
Provider #2
June 2008. Page 22 wwww.argugrid.eu
Negotiation System deployment
GOLEM Containers [ARGUGRID D3.3]
Client #1 Client #2
Registery
Reg
iste
ryC
onne
ctor
RegisteryConnector
Reg
iste
ryC
onne
ctor
container
agent communicationor agent/service discovery
Connector
Provider #1 Provider #2
Provider #3
Provider #4
June 2008. Page 23 wwww.argugrid.eu
Summary
Outline
Introduction
ARGUGRID
Agent reasoning [Morge ArgMAS 07]
Negotiation [Morge et al, EUMAS’07]
Conclusion and future works
June 2008. Page 24 wwww.argugrid.eu
Summary
Dialectics for semantic integration in distributed
environments
Summary:• Arguing for decison under uncertaintyconflicts over agent’s statements[Morge ArgMAS 07]
• Dialectical agent architectureconflicts over agent’s motivations[Morge et al, JFSMA’08]
• Dispute for service compositionconflict over agents’ interests[Morge et al, EUMAS’07]
Future works:• Arguing for planningwith normative/trustreasoning.
• Multi-thread prototypewith experimental validation
• Game theoryfor interactive strategy
June 2008. Page 25 wwww.argugrid.eu
Summary
References
Morge, M.Collective Decision making process to compose divergent interests and perspectives.
Special issue on Argumentation in Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, p 75-92,Springer-Verlag.
Morge, M. and Routier, JCDebating over heterogeneous descriptions.
Applied Ontology, Special issue on Formal Ontology for Communicating Agents, Volume 2,Number 3-4, pages 333-349, IOS press.
Maxime Morge.The hedgehog and the fox. An argumentation-based decision support system.
In Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C., Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: FourthInternational Workshop ArgMAS, Revised Selected and Invited Papers, vol 4946 of LectureNotes in Artificial Intelligence, p 114–131, Springer-Verlag.
Maxime MorgeSe concerter à l’aide d’un système multi-agents.
Humanités numériques 2. Socio-informatique et démocratie cognitive, Cognition ettraitement de l’information, p 117-126, Hermès science publication.
June 2008. Page 26 wwww.argugrid.eu
Summary
References (bis)
M. Morge, J. McGinnis, S. Bromuri, F. Toni, P. Mancarella, K. Stathis.Toward a Modular Architecture of Argumentative Agents to Compose Services.
Proc. of EUMAS’07, Hammamet, Tunisia 2007
Morge, M and Mancarella, P.Argumentation-based decision making for selecting communication services in
ambient home environments.
Proc. of AISB Convention, Newcastle University, UK, April, 2007.
M. Morge, K. Stathis and L. VercouterArguing over motivations for self-adaptation within the V3A-architecture.
Proc. of 16ème Journées Francophones sur les Systèmes Multi-Agents (JFSMA’08), Brest,France 2008.
T. Stournaras, editor.eBusiness application scenarios.Deliverable document D1.2 ARGUGRID, 2007.
Phan Minh DungOn the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic
reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.
Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 77, Issue 2, p. 321-357, 1995
June 2008. Page 27 wwww.argugrid.eu
Summary
References (bis)
J. McGinnis, editor.Virtual Organisations as Agent Societies: Phases.Deliverable document D3.2 ARGUGRID, 2007.
S. Bromuri, editor.GOLEM.Deliverable document D3.3 ARGUGRID, 2007.
June 2008. Page 28 wwww.argugrid.eu
Summary Arguing over motivations
The V3A Architecture [Morge et al, JFSMA’08]
AS
Body
persKBenv K
Bint
KBorgK
Bagt
KB
env1
KBenv2
KBuser
f1
f2
f3
f4 f5
f6
f7
KB
int1
KBint2
Component-basedarchitecture
Vowels approach
Dialogue amongst facets
Personality-basedresolution of conflicts
High-level control of theautonomy and thebehaviour
⇒ Self-adaptation in openMAS
June 2008. Page 29 wwww.argugrid.eu