learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in
play

Learning and Joint Deliberation through Argumentation in MAS Santi - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Learning and Joint Deliberation through Argumentation in MAS Santi Ontan (GeorgiaTech) Enric Plaza (IIIA-CSIC) dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 1 Outline Introduction Justified Predictions in MAS Arguments and Counterexamples


  1. Learning and Joint Deliberation through Argumentation in MAS Santi Ontañón (GeorgiaTech) Enric Plaza (IIIA-CSIC) dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 1

  2. Outline • Introduction • Justified Predictions in MAS • Arguments and Counterexamples • Argumentation-based MAL • Experimental Evaluation • Conclusions & Future Work dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 2

  3. Committee dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 3

  4. Committee Input Deliberation Aggregation Output Committee : ( 1 ) A group of people o ffi cially delegated ( elected or appointed ) to perform a function, such as investigating, considering, reporting, or acting on a matter. Team : A number of persons associated in some joint action. A group organized to work together. Coalition : A combination or alliance, esp. a temporary one between persons, factions, states, etc. An alliance for combined action, especially a temporary alliance of political parties. dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 3

  5. Ensemble Effect Joint Joint Prediction prediction Ensemble better than effect best P i Aggregation (e.g. Voting) Predictors P 1 P 2 ... P n-1 P n Bagging / Boosting / other... Data Set dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 4

  6. Committee of agents Joint Joint Prediction Ensemble prediction effect better than best A i Voting A 1 A 2 ... A n-1 A n Agents DS DS 1 DS 2 DS n n-1 dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 5

  7. Deliberation + Voting A 1 A n Agents A 2 A n-1 ... Deliberation (Argumentation framework) dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 6

  8. Deliberation + Voting Joint Prediction Agreement Voting A 1 A n Agents A 2 A n-1 ... Deliberation (Argumentation framework) dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 6

  9. Introduction • CBR agents • solve problems and learn from them • How could CBR agents collaborate? • solving and/or learning from cases • Argumentation process • to mediate agent collaboration • achieving a joint prediction dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 7

  10. Learning vs Cooperating • Why to learn in problem solving? • to improve accuracy, range, etc • Why to cooperate in problem solving? • to improve accuracy, range, etc • Learning-cooperation continuum • learning agents that cooperate by arguing dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 8

  11. CBR cycle Problem Retrieve New New Case Retrieved Case Retrieved Case Case n Reuse i Precedent a Case t e R Domain Knowledge Revised Solved Case Case Revise dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 9

  12. Argumentation in Multi-Agent Learning • An argumentation framework for learning agents • Justified Predictions as arguments • Individual policies for agents to • generate arguments and • generate counterarguments • select counterexamples dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 10

  13. Justified Prediction Justification : A symbolic description with the information relevant to determine a specific prediction Case 1 Case 2 Traffic_light : red Traffic_light : green Cars_passing : no Cars_passing : no Solution: wait Problem Solution: wait Solution: cross Traffic_light : red Justification Cars_passing : no Case 3 Case 4 Traffic_light : red Traffic_light : red Traffic_light : green Cars_passing : yes Cars_passing : yes Solution: wait Solution: wait Retrieved cases dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 11

  14. Justification example Solution: hadromerida Justification: D 1 Spikulate Skeleton Sponge Megascleres Megascleres P LID Spikulate Smooth form : tylostyle Uniform length : no New skeleton sponge External External features features Gemmules : no Case Base of A 1 ! ! " ! ! ! " " #" $%&'()*'+&%" , " " dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 12

  15. Justification example Solution: hadromerida Justification: D 1 Spikulate Skeleton Sponge Megascleres Megascleres P LID Spikulate Smooth form : tylostyle Uniform length : no New skeleton sponge External External features features Gemmules : no Case Base of A 1 ! ! " ! ! ! " " #" $%&'()*'+&%" , " " The predicted solution is hadromerida because the smooth form of the megascleres of the spiculate skeleton of the sponge is of type tylostyle , the spikulate skeleton of the sponge has not uniform length , and there are no gemmules in the external features of the sponge. dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 12

  16. Counterargument generation Solution: astrophorida ! ! " ! ! ! " " #" $%&'()*'+&%" , " " Justification: D 2 Spikulate Skeleton Sponge Megascleres Megascleres Spikulate Smooth form : tylostyle LID Uniform length : no skeleton External External features features Gemmules : no Growing Grow : massive Growing : Case Base of A 2 " " # ! ! ! # " #" %-.'(/$('+&%" , # " dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 13

  17. Argument types • Justified Prediction : An argument α α = � A i , P , + , D � endorsing a individual prediction • Counterargument : An argument β β = � A 2 , P , − , D 2 � offered in opposition to an argument α • Counterexample : A case c c = � P 1 , −� contradicting an argument α dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 14

  18. Case-based Confidence ! ! ! ! ! " #" " " $ " + ! # " ! . ! / ! !"#"# ! 0 % 1 - + + + - + + - - + + - #$%& '$%& () $*&+, - ! dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 15

  19. Preference on Arguments α = � A i , P , + , D � + Confidence on an argument based on - + + + - ? cases Y Y N C ( α ) = Y + N dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 16

  20. Preference on Arguments(2) α C ( α ) = 4 + 5 = 0 . 8 C ( β ) = 2 β 3 = 0 . 66 - + + + - + - ? P dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 17

  21. Preference on Arguments(2) α C ( α ) = 4 Preferred + 5 = 0 . 8 C ( β ) = 2 β 3 = 0 . 66 - + + + - + - ? P dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 17

  22. Preference on Arguments(2) α C ( α ) = 4 Preferred + 5 = 0 . 8 C ( β ) = 2 β 3 = 0 . 66 - + + + - + - Joint Confidence ? P Y A 1 + Y A 2 + 1 α α C ( α ) = Y A 1 + Y A 2 + N A 1 + N A 2 + 2 α α α α dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 17

  23. Relations between arguments a) b) c) α α α + + + β β β - + - ? ? ? P P P α = � A 1 , P , + , D 1 � α = � A 1 , P , + , D 1 � α = � A 1 , P , + , D 1 � β = � A 2 , P , − , D 2 � β = � A 2 , P , + , D 2 � β = � A 2 , P , − , D 2 � dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 18

  24. Relations between arguments a) b) c) α α α + + + β β β - + - ? ? ? P P P α = � A 1 , P , + , D 1 � α = � A 1 , P , + , D 1 � α = � A 1 , P , + , D 1 � β = � A 2 , P , − , D 2 � β = � A 2 , P , + , D 2 � β = � A 2 , P , − , D 2 � Incomparable Consistent Counterargument dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 18

  25. Relations between cases and justified predictions α = � A i , P , + , D � a) b) α = � A i , P , + , D � c) α = � A i , P , + , D � + + + + - - ? ? ? c = � P 1 , + � c = � P 1 , −� c = � P 1 , −� P P P dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 19

  26. Relations between cases and justified predictions α = � A i , P , + , D � a) b) α = � A i , P , + , D � c) α = � A i , P , + , D � + + + + - - ? ? ? c = � P 1 , + � c = � P 1 , −� c = � P 1 , −� P P P Endorsing case Irrelevant case Counterexample dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 19

  27. Argument Generation • Generation of a Justified Prediction • LID generates a description α . D subsuming P • Generation of a Counterargument • if no Counterargument can be generated then: • Selection of a Counterexample dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 20

  28. Counterargument Generation α + • Counterarguments are generated based β - on the specificity criterion • LID generates a description β . D ? subsuming P and subsumed by α . D P dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 21

  29. Selection of a Counterexample α = � A i , P , + , D � + • Select a case c subsumed by α . D and endorsing a different solution class. - ? c = � P 1 , −� P dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 22

  30. AMAL protocol Assertions of n agents at round t H t = � α t 1 , ..., α t n � Justified prediction asserted assert ( α ) in the next round Agent states a counterargument ß rebut ( β, α ) contradict ( α t i ) = { α ∈ H t | α.S � = α t i .S } Set of contradicting arguments for agent A i at round t (those predicting a different solution) dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 23

  31. Agents assert α DELIBERATION at Round t & Agent owning the token Joint t All Agree? YES Solution NO Nobody Agent+token Voting new args Generates Generates CE CA Better CA Rebut CA Better CA Agent'+CE NO than ? to Agent' than ? α � α YES NO YES Agent Agent' New arg asserts CA asserts CA dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 24

  32. Argument Generation contradict ( α t i ) = { α ∈ H t | α .S � = α t i .S } Generate CA for each May not found a CA for each β 1 ... β k If empty generates CE Select argument with a generated CA that has lowest confidence α i Most likely to "convince" the Select CA for that other agent to change assertion argument β i dijous 12 de novembre de 2009 25

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend