Some domains, such as real-time strategy (RTS) games, pose several challenges to traditional planning and machine learning techniques. In this paper, we present a novel on-line case-based planning architecture that addresses some of these problems. Our architecture addresses issues of plan acquisition, on-line plan execution, interleaved planning and execution and on-line plan adaptation. We also introduce the Darmok system, which implements this architecture in order to play Wargus (an open source clone of the well-known RTS game Warcraft II). We present empirical evaluation of the performance of Darmok and show that it successfully learns to play the Wargus game.

No abstract

In this paper we will present an argumentation framework for learning agents (AMAL) designed for two purposes: (1) for joint deliberation, and (2) for learning from communication. The AMAL framework is completely based on learning from examples: the argument preference relation, the argument generation policy, and the counterargument generation policy are case-based techniques. For join deliberation, learning agents share their experience by forming a committee to decide upon some joint decision. We experimentally show that the argumentation among committees of agents improves both the individual and joint performance. For learning from communication, an agent engages into arguing with other agents in order to contrast its individual hypotheses and receive counterexamples; the argumentation process improves their learning scope and individual performance.

Abstract. This paper focuses of the group judgments obtained from a committee of agents that use deliberation. The deliberative process is realized by an argumentation framework called AMAL. The AMAL framework is completely based on learning from examples: the argument preference relation, the argument generation policy, and the counterargument generation policy are case-based techniques. For join deliberation, learning agents share their experience by forming a committee to decide upon some joint decision. We experimentally show that the deliberation in committees of agents improves the accuracy of group judgments. We also show that a voting scheme based on assessing the confidence of arguments improves the accuracy of group judgments than majority voting.

No abstract