Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions
Visualitza/Obre
Estadístiques de LA Referencia / Recolecta
Inclou dades d'ús des de 2022
Cita com:
hdl:2117/91191
Tipus de documentReport de recerca
Data publicació2011
Condicions d'accésAccés obert
Tots els drets reservats. Aquesta obra està protegida pels drets de propietat intel·lectual i
industrial corresponents. Sense perjudici de les exempcions legals existents, queda prohibida la seva
reproducció, distribució, comunicació pública o transformació sense l'autorització del titular dels drets
Abstract
In this paper we present the argument-based model ProCLAIM, intended to provide a setting for heterogeneous agents to deliberate over safety critical actions. To achieve this purpose ProCLAIM features a Mediator Agent with three main tasks: 1) guiding the participating agents in what their valid dialectical moves are at each stage of the dialogue; 2) deciding whether submitted arguments should be accepted on the basis of their relevance; and Finally, 3) evaluating the accepted arguments in order to provide an assessment of whether the proposed action should or should not be undertaken. The main focus in this paper is the proposal of a set of reasoning patterns, represented in terms of argument schemes and critical questions, intended to automatise deliberations on whether a proposed action can safely be performed. We aim to motivate the importance of these schemes and critical questions for: a) the Mediator Agent's guiding task that allows for a highly focused deliberation; b) the effective participation of heterogeneous agents; and c) enabling the reuse of previous similar deliberations in order to evaluate arguments on an evidential basis.
CitacióTolchinsky, F., Modgil, S., Atkinson, K., McBurney, P., Cortés, C. "Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions". 2011.
Forma partLSI-11-3-R
Fitxers | Descripció | Mida | Format | Visualitza |
---|---|---|---|---|
R11-3.pdf | 1,295Mb | Visualitza/Obre |