1 / 18

Arguing Agents in a Multi-Agent System for Regulated Information Exchange

Arguing Agents in a Multi-Agent System for Regulated Information Exchange. Pieter Dijkstra. Regulated information exchange. Information exchange is often regulated by data protection laws Hardcoding these laws in communication protocols: Ensures compliance with the law

lark
Download Presentation

Arguing Agents in a Multi-Agent System for Regulated Information Exchange

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Arguing Agents in a Multi-Agent System for Regulated Information Exchange Pieter Dijkstra

  2. Regulated information exchange • Information exchange is often regulated by data protection laws • Hardcoding these laws in communication protocols: • Ensures compliance with the law • But in a rigid way, ignoring exceptional circumstances, social goals ... • Allow for argumentation

  3. ANITA: MAS for exchanging crime-related information • Goal of police organisation: exchange as much information as possible • But stay within the law • Goal of crime investigators: protect their investigation • Anonymity of informants! • How to balance these goals? • Allow agents to argue with each other; • But also to reason internally about their goals

  4. P: Tell me all you know about recent trading in explosive materials (request) P: why don’t you want to tell me? P: why aren’t you allowed to tell me? P: You may be right in general (concede) but in this case there is an exception since this is a matter of national importance P: since we have heard about a possible terrorist attack P: OK, I agree (offer accepted). O: No I won’t (reject) O: since I am not allowed to tell you O: sincesharing such information could endanger an investigation O: Why is this a matter of national importance? O: I concede that there is an exception, so I retract that I am not allowed to tell you. I will tell you on the condition that you don’t exchange the information with other police officers (offer) Example

  5. P: Tell me all you know about recent trading in explosive materials (request) P: why don’t you want to tell me? P: why aren’t you allowed to tell me? P: You may be right in general (concede) but in this case there is an exception since this is a matter of national importance P: since we have heard about a possible terrorist attack P: OK, I agree (offer accepted). O: No I won’t (reject) O: since I am not allowed to tell you O: since sharing such information could endanger an investigation O: Why is this a matter of national importance? O: I concede that there is an exception, so I retract that I am not allowed to tell you.I will tell you on the condition that you don’t exchange the information with other police officers (offer) Example

  6. P: Tell me all you know about recent trading in explosive materials (request) P: why don’t you want to tell me? P: why aren’t you allowed to tell me? P: You may be right in general (concede) but in this case there is an exception since this is a matter of national importance P: since we have heard about a possible terrorist attack P: OK, I agree (offer accepted). O: No I won’t (reject) O: since I am not allowed to tell you O: since sharing such information could endanger an investigation O: Why is this a matter of national importance? O: I concede that there is an exception, so I retract that I am not allowed to tell you.I will tell you on the condition that you don’t exchange the information with other police officers (offer) Example

  7. The communication language

  8. The protocol • Start with a request • Repy to a previous move of the other agent • Pick your replies from the table • Finish persuasion before resuming negotiation • Turntaking: • In nego: after each move • In pers: various rules possible • Termination: • In nego: if offer is accepted or someone withdraws • In pers: if main claim is retracted or conceded

  9. Example dialogue formalised P: Request to tell O: Reject to tell P: Why reject to tell? Embedded persuasion ... O: Offer to tell if no further exchange P: Accept after tell no further exchange

  10. Persuasion part formalised O: Claim Not allowed to tell P: Why not allowed to tell? O: Not allowed to tell since telling endangers investigation & What endangers an investigation is not allowed P:Concede What endangers an investigation is not allowed P: Exception to R1 since National importance & National importance  Exception to R1 O: Why National importance? P: National importance since Terrorist threat & Terrorist threat  National importance

  11. Persuasion part formalised O: Claim Not allowed to tell P: Why not allowed to tell? O: Not allowed to tell since telling endangers investigation & What endangers an investigation is not allowed P:Concede What endangers an investigation is not allowed P: Exception to R1 since National importance & National importance  Exception to R1 P:Concede Exception to R1 O: Why National importance? P: National importance since Terrorist threat & Terrorist threat  National importance

  12. Persuasion part formalised O: Claim Not allowed to tell P: Why not allowed to tell? O: Retract Not allowed to tell O: Not allowed to tell since telling endangers investigation & What endangers an investigation is not allowed P:Concede What endangers an investigation is not allowed P: Exception to R1 since National importance & National importance  Exception to R1 O:Concede Exception to R1 O: Why National importance? P: National importance since Terrorist threat & Terrorist threat  National importance

  13. Agent Design • Knowledge of • Regulations • Goals • Consequences of actions • Reasoning • Defeasible • Dialogue policies • Negotiation • Persuasion • Belief revision policies

  14. Negotiation policy of responding agent Perform requested action? • Obliged? • yes: accept • no: → • Forbidden? • yes: reject • no:→ • Violation of own interests? • no: accept • yes:→ • Try to find conditions • yes: counteroffer • no: reject

  15. Persuasion policy for responding agent (1) How to respond to “p since Q”? • Does the argument satisfy the context criteria? • yes: concede premises and conclusion • no: → • Does KB imply p? • yes: concede conclusion • no:→ • Does KB warrant a counterargument (for not-p or an exception)? • yes: state counterargument • yes or no:→ • Investigate each premise q in Q

  16. Persuasion policy for responding agent (2) How to respond to premise q of “p since Q”? • Is the argument of the form p since p? • yes: deny p • no:→ • Does KB imply q? • yes: concede q • no:→ • Does KB imply not-q? • yes: state argument for not-q • no:why q

  17. Persuasion policy for responding agent (3) How to respond to “why p”? • Does KB warrant an argument p since Q? • yes: state “p since Q” • no:retract p

  18. Conclusion • We have integrated three strands of theoretical work on dialogue in a MAS application scenario: • Argumentation logics • Dialogue systems • Dialogue strategies for agents

More Related