Rapport de stage - briot/documents/Rapport_Stage_M2_09_2017_Anis... · Rapport de stage Expert agents…

Download Rapport de stage - briot/documents/Rapport_Stage_M2_09_2017_Anis... · Rapport de stage Expert agents…

Post on 16-Sep-2018

213 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Rapport de stage

    Expert agents in negotiation and argumentation

    for serious games on participatory management

    GARGOURI Anis

    anis.gargouri@lip6.fr

    Universit Paris DESCARTES

    Master 2 Recherche en Intelligence Artificielle

    Parcours : Intelligence Artificielle Distribue

    Encadrants :

    BRIOT JeanPierre Directeur de Recherche CNRS, UPMC LIP6

    MAUDET Nicolas Professeur, UPMC LIP6

    Enseignant rfrant :

    MORATIS Pavlos Professeur, Paris Descartes LIPADE

    2016 2017

  • FLVCTVAT

    NEC MERGITVR

  • Acknowledgments

    First of all, I want to express my profound gratitude to my advisors:

    Mr Nicolas Maudet and Mr JeanPierre Briot for having welcomed me into

    the SMA team at LIP6, but above all for their valuable advices, for their

    guidance and encouragement during my internship.

    I am grateful to the members of my master thesis committee for their time

    and effort to evaluate this work.

    I am also thankful to all of my master course teachers at Paris Descartes.

    Specially to Mr Pavlos Moratis.

    I want to thank also all those who, from near or far, have helped me realize

    this master thesis.

  • Contents

    1 Introduction 1

    1.1 What is Participatory Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Why Negotiation and Argumentation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Contribution of the master thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Structure of the document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

    2 Related work 5

    2.1 Participatory Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.1 AgentBased modeling of Participatory Management . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.2 The SimParc project (20072017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.1 Parameters of Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2.2 Types of Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.3 Classical approaches of Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.4 Multilateral Mediated Negotiation approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

    3 Contribution: Participatory Management Negotiation Framework 15

    3.1 RolePlaying Game Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2 InterAgent Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.1 Protocol Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.2 Negotiation Speech Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3 Agent Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3.1 BDI Model and Logical Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3.2 Personal Knowledge Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.3.3 Learned Knowledge Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.3.4 Qualitative Bipolar Desires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.3.5 Rules and Evaluation Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.3.6 Conversation and explanatory arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.7 Agents architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.4 Mediator Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.4.1 Offer proposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.4.2 Negotiation cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.4.3 Negotiation response time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.4.4 Proposition validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

    4 Conclusion and perspectives 30

  • Bibliography 31

    Appendix 35

    A Example of application of Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 B SimParc Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

  • 1

    Introduction

    With the advances in Information and Communications Technology and in MultiAgent Systems (MAS), the need for software agents able to negotiate with others, instead human users, becomes increasingly important. It seems interesting to us to use the MultiAgent Sys-tems applied to participatory management, to build a tool both pedagogical and epistemic. It is a matter of assisting the negotiation until decisionmaking. More specifically, we would like to help social actors to first understand the reasons for existing conflicts and then to negotiate strategies to solve them. The MultiAgent technology is particularly adapted to implement such applications. Indeed, the use of autonomous, cognitive and social agents [Woolridge, 2001] can automate negotiation processes, decisionmaking and increase the autonomy of the system.

    This project aims to explore the use of argumentbased formalisms for decision support and negotiation in a context of participatory management of socioecosystems, such as pro-tected areas and natural parks to conserve biodiversity and promote social inclusion. The con-text of the project is the serious game (computerbased pedagogical role play/training and exploratory) on the participatory management of socioenvironmental resources (such as pro-tected areas for the conservation and/or sustainable use of natural resources). In such game, abstracting real situations and conflicts (e.g. activities of the management consultancy of a protected space), different players embody different roles of social actors (e.g. environmental-ist, fisherman, tourism operator, mayor, etc.) having different perceptions and objectives. The application objective is to train actors and decisionmakers to identify conflicts (conflicts of access to or protection of resources, e.g. marine resources) and to collectively develop strate-gies for resolving conflicts, essential objectives to escape the tragedy of the commons [Ostrom, 1999].

    1.1 What is Participatory Management?

    Participatory management is a pluralist approach for managing natural resources, incorpo-rating a variety of partners in a variety of roles, generally to the end goals of environmental conservation, sustainable use of resources and the equitable sharing of resourcerelated bene-fits and responsibilities. It is a political and cultural process by excellence: seeking social jus-tice and democracy in the management of natural resource. It is a process that needs some basic conditions to develop, among which are: full access to information on relevant issues and options, freedom and capacity to organize, freedom to express needs and concerns, a nondiscriminatory social environment, the will of partners to negotiate, confidence in the respect

  • 2 INTRODUCTION

    of agreements, etc. Also, it is a complex often lengthy and sometimes confused process, involv-ing frequent changes, surprises, sometimes contradictory information, and the need to retrace ones own steps. And finally, it is the expression of a mature society, which understands that there is no unique and objective solution for managing natural resources but, rather, a mul-tiplicity of different options which are compatible with both indigenous knowledge and scien-tific evidence and capable of meeting the needs of conservation and development (and that there also exists a multitude of negative or disastrous options for the environment and devel-opment).

    The three major phases of a participatory management process are: Organizing: Preparation for the partnership Negotiating: Negotiation of participatory management plans and agreements Learning by doing: Implementation and revision of plans and agreements

    In the following the main concepts and elements of the participatory management of natu-ral resources, according to BorriniFeyerabend [BorriniFeyerabend, 2000]:

    Adaptive management A management approach recognizing, on one hand, the lack of definitive univocal

    knowledge about the behavior of the actors and, on other hand, the uncertainty that domi-nates our interaction with others. It is based on the observation that resource management is always experimental, that there are always lessons to be learned from the implemented activi-ties and that it is possible to improve the management of resources based on acquired experi-ence.

    Pluralism A pluralistic approach focuses on recognizing that in every society there are different ac-

    tors, interests, concerns and values. In particular: There are several categories of social actors (e.g. governmental and nongovernmental organization, groups and individuals, local and ex-ternal communities with rights to exploit local resources), which are complementary to natu-ral resource management. Moreover, communities are in themselves actors and constitute the most natural and convincing unit of identity, integration and defense for many disadvantaged groups and individuals.

    Conflict management Conflict management is a nonviolent process that promotes dialogue and negotiation. It

    consists of guiding conflicts towards constructive rather than destructive results. It implies: taking care of disagreements before they generate hostility; helping the institutional actors to explore a multiplicity of options for agreement and sub-

    sequently select an option everyone can live with; recognizing and intervening in the underlying causes of conflict, with a view to preventing

    them in the future.

    Whenever the conflicts are serious and the parties involved are distant and hostile, the presence of a facilitator, mediator or arbitrator is highly recommended. A conflict

  • INTRODUCTION 3

    management instructor could also be called upon. Their role is similar, but not exactly the same (see below). These key figures in conflict management are often private individuals (reli-gious leaders, retired judges, local wisemen and women, etc.) possessing special characteris-tics and capacities [BorriniFeyerabend, 2000]:

    Facilitators: Assist only in the running of the process. They never allow themselves to be drawn into the arguments.

    Mediators: Act as facilitators, but also help develop a wide range of options for the par-ties to discuss and choose from. They help conflicting parties to reach an agreement satis-factory for everyone.

    Arbitrators: Act as judges: they listen to the various parties, review pertinent docu-ments and issue a decision, which is treated by all concerned as an expert opinion or an obligation, depending on what was decided in advance.

    Instructors: Help the parties (usually in separate sessions) to learn the elements of con-flict management, which the parties will hopefully succeed in applying to their own con-flict situation.

    Social communication Communication may be personal (onetoone), interpersonal (among a few individu-

    als) and social (when it involves social groups, such as a local community). Social communi-cation for participatory management is about providing the conditions for informed decisionmaking in society, i.e. promote the sharing of information and the discussion of problems, opportunities and alternative options for decisions/actions.

    1.2 Why Negotiation and Argumentation?

    Modern processes of conflict management are quite close to the processes used to negotiate a participatory management agreement; both express the same values (dialogue, transparency, pluralism, fairness, etc.), have the same main constituents and can be facilitated in similar way. We can highlight the main constituents of modern conflict management approaches there is: a concern of social actors, a common area of interest and some points of conflict (dif-ferent values, interests and needs of the various actors involved), a forum for negotiation and some basic rules providing a framework for the actors concerned to meet and discuss issues together, some reliable data on the points of conflict, various options for action generated by the actors concerned and discussed among themselves, a written agreement on one of these options, legitimization of the agreement, and implementation of the agreement.

    We are considering an agreement in a negotiation as a reason to believe in a conclusion, to make an action or to adopt a goal. It is then that the utility of the use of argumentation dur-ing a negotiation, is initially influence others: influencing the beliefs, the goals and the prefer-ences of other agents. And in a second time to make explanatory arguments following a deci-sionmaking process.

  • 4 INTRODUCTION

    1.3 Contribution of the master thesis

    The objective is therefore to move towards support of negotiation. Indeed, the prototype of the previously developed manager/decisionmaker agent [Sordoni et al., 2010] uses arguments only internally, to its deliberation, leading to its decision. Our objective is to extend this first study that is limited to internal deliberative approach, as support and assistance to the nego-tiation between players based on arguments (where exchange and confrontation of arguments and counter arguments will be the basis of negotiations) [Parsons et al., 1998].

    There are different formalisms of argumentation systems, including [Rahwan & al., 2006], extending the Belief Desire Intention model (BDI). Which served as a foundation for the arti-ficial decisionmaking agent [Sordoni & al., 2010], implemented in the MultiAgent program-ming language AgentSpeak [Rao, 1996], above the Jason platform [Bordini & al., 2007].

    From a more epistemological point of view, we also seek to reconcile the strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches: The technical assistance at the level of an ex-pert/decisionmaker and its risks of technocratic drifts; And the purely participatory man-agement and its risks of relativistic drift due to the lack of objective and shared technical ar-guments for the decision. Our objective is to explore the insertion of technical expertise at the level of social actors (assistants, or possibly autonomous artificial players) and its impact on the negotiation and participatory decisionmaking process.

    1.4 Structure of the document

    This master thesis is organized in the following way. The second chapter presents the relat-ed work of the two sides of our master thesis, namely participatory management and negotia-tion in multiagent systems. Chapter 3 presents our Participatory Management Framework for the negotiation of natural resources, based on an exchange of arguments. It considers two types of agents: the participant agents (social actors) and the mediator (administrator of the natural resources park), and it is composed of two levels: the interagent level (th...

Recommended

View more >