Dialogue Based Decision Making in Online Trading
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/tmlai.53.3390Keywords:
Dialogue games, Online auction, Semantic Web ServicesAbstract
Software agents, acting on behalf of humans, have been identified as an important solution for future electronic markets. Such agents can make their own decisions based on given prior preferences and the market environment. These preferences can be described using Web Ontology Languages (OWL), while the market mechanism can be represented in a machine-understandable way by utilizing the technique of Semantic Web Services (SWS). Besides, SWS enables agents to automatically discover, select, compose and invoke services. To extend the dependability and interactivity of SWS, we have utilized dialogue games and the Proof-Carrying Code (PCC) to enable buyers to interact with sellers, so that desirable properties for an online auction market can be automatically certified. Our decision-making framework combines formal proofs with informal evidence collected by web services in a dialogue game between a seller and a buyer. We have implemented our approach and experimental results have demonstrated the feasibility as well as the validity of this framework as an enabler for a buyer agent to enter or not an online auction.
References
(1) Azhar, M.Q. and E.I. Sklar. Analysis of empirical results on argumentation-based dialogue to support shared decision making in a human-robot team. in Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on. 2016. IEEE.
(2) Bai, W., E. Tadjouddine, and T. Payne. A Dialectical Approach to Enable Decision Making in Online Trading. in European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. 2015. Springer International Publishing.
(3) Bai, W. and E.M. Tadjouddine, Automated program translation in certifying online auctions. ETAPS/VpPT, 2015: p. 11-18.
(4) Bai, W., E.M. Tadjouddine, and Y. Guo, Enabling Automatic Certification of Online Auctions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.0854, 2014.
(5) Bai, W., et al. A proof-carrying code approach to certificate auction mechanisms. in International Workshop on Formal Aspects of Component Software. 2013. Springer.
(6) Bellifemine, F.L., G. Caire, and D. Greenwood, Developing multi-agent systems with JADE. Vol. 7. 2007: John Wiley & Sons.
(7) Berners-Lee, T., J. Hendler, and O. Lassila, The semantic web. Scientific american, 2001. 284(5): p. 28-37.
(8) Black, E. and A. Hunter, An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2009. 19(2): p. 173-209.
(9) Christensen, E., et al., Web services description language (WSDL) 1.1, 2001.
(10) Dowek, G., et al., The COQ proof assistant user's guide: Version 5.6, 1991, INRIA.
(11) Fipa, A., Fipa acl message structure specification. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, http://www. fipa. org/specs/fipa00061/SC00061G. html (30.6. 2004), 2002.
(12) García, A.J. and G.R. Simari, Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and practice of logic programming, 2004. 4(1+ 2): p. 95-138.
(13) Gonthier, G., The four colour theorem: Engineering of a formal proof, in Computer Mathematics2008, Springer. p. 333-333.
(14) Horrocks, I., et al. Semantic web architecture: Stack or two towers?
in International Workshop on Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning. 2005. Springer.
(15) Horrocks, I., et al., SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member submission, 2004. 21: p. 79.
(16) Leroy, X., Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Communications of the ACM, 2009. 52(7): p. 107-115.
(17) Martin, D., et al., OWL-S: Semantic markup for web services. W3C member submission, 2004. 22: p. 2007-04.
(18) McBurney, P. and S. Parsons, Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of logic, language and information, 2002. 11(3): p. 315-334.
(19) McBurney, P. and S. Parsons. Locutions for argumentation in agent interaction protocols. in International Workshop on Agent Communication. 2004. Springer.
(20) McBurney, P. and S. Parsons, Dialogue games for agent argumentation, in Argumentation in artificial intelligence2009, Springer. p. 261-280.
(21) McBurney, P., S. Parsons, and M. Wooldridge. Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. in Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1. 2002. ACM.
(22) McGuinness, D.L. and F. Van Harmelen, OWL web ontology language overview. W3C recommendation, 2004. 10(10): p. 2004.
(23) Necula, G.C., Proof-carrying code. design and implementation, in Proof and system-reliability2002, Springer. p. 261-288.
(24) Payne, T.R. and V. Tamma. Negotiating over ontological correspondences with asymmetric and incomplete knowledge. in Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. 2014. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
(25) Roman, D., et al., Web service modeling ontology. Applied ontology, 2005. 1(1): p. 77-106.
(26) Tamma, V., et al., Ontologies for supporting negotiation in e-commerce. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence, 2005. 18(2): p. 223-236.
(27) Toni, F., et al. The ArguGRID platform: an overview. in International Workshop on Grid Economics and Business Models. 2008. Springer.
(28) Torroni, P., M. Gavanelli, and F. Chesani, Argumentation in the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2007. 22(6).
(29) Walton, D. and E.C. Krabbe, Commitment in dialogue, 1995, State University of New York Press Albany.
