Titlebook: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems; 6th International Wo Peter McBurney,Iyad Rahwan,Nicolas Maudet Conference proceedings 2010 Springer-V

諂媚于性

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28908-8ossible arguments that an agent can put forth, which should be selected in what circumstances. In this paper we propose a heuristic that implements one such strategy. The heuristic is built around opponent modelling, and operates by selecting the line of argument that yields maximal utility, based o

省略

evanescent

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28908-8to be true. This paper presents a novel approach to find out every . (resp. .) explanation which is the set of hypotheses needed to . (resp. .) justify the argument supporting a disputer’s claim based on abductive knowledge base under the specified argumentation semantics. The main subject of this p

責(zé)問

范圍廣

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-67895-4ch environments are characterized by the existence of heterogeneous agents that commit to different ontologies, with no prior assumptions regarding the use of shared vocabularies. Various approaches have therefore considered how mutually acceptable mappings may be determined dynamically between agen

蹣跚

有罪

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14119-5lso play a role in agent decision making. This paper builds on several pieces of earlier work which resulted in a formalization of a model of emotions. We show how, in particular, the emotions of gratitude and displeasure and related emotions can be beneficially integrated into a model of decision m

發(fā)誓放棄

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14119-5participants agents more human-like and to increase their flexibility in the negotiation process in group decision-making, the authors investigated the role of personality behaviours of participants applied to the conflict style theme. The negotiation is made in a bilateral way where both parties ar

MILL

Strategic Voting in the Laboratorytion is an innovative research area that aims at solving this issue, where agents encapsulate different matching techniques and the distinct results are shared, compared, chosen and agreed. In this paper, we compare three argumentation frameworks, which consider different notions of acceptability: b

homocysteine

Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems978-3-642-12805-9Series ISSN 0302-9743 Series E-ISSN 1611-3349