Skip to main content

An Argumentation-Based Approach for Practical Reasoning

  • Conference paper
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2006)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4766))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We build on recent work on argumentation frameworks for generating desires and plans. We provide a rich instantiation of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework for (i) generating consistent desires; and (ii) generating consistent plans for achieving these desires. This is done through three distinct argumentation frameworks: one (now standard) for arguing about beliefs, one for arguing about what desires the agent should adopt, and one for arguing about what plans to intend in order to achieve the agent’s desires. More specifically, we refine and extend existing approaches by providing means for comparing arguments based on decision-theoretic notions (cf. utility). Thus, the worth of desires and the cost of resources are integrated into the argumentation frameworks and taken into account when comparing arguments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L.: A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 552–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1–3), 197–215 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Justifying practical reasoning. In: Reed, C., Grasso, F., Carenini, G. (eds.) Proc. Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA), pp. 87–90 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F.: Jason: A Java-based AgentSpeak interpreter used with saci for multi-agent distribution over the net (2005), http://jason.sourceforge.net/.

  6. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Gärdenfors, P.: Belief Revision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Agent programming in 3apl. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(4), 357–401 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In: Hunter, A., Lang, J. (eds.) Proc. Workshop on Argument, Dialogue and Decision, at NMR, Whistler, Canada (June 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: AAMAS, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 883–890 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Kluwer, Netherlands (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Decision procedures for BDI logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 293–342 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Simari, G.R., Garcia, A.J., Capobianco, M.: Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 377–384 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tang, Y., Parsons, S.: Argumentation-based dialogues for deliberation. In: Dignum, F., et al. (eds.) AAMAS, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 552–559. ACM Press, New York (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Nicolas Maudet Simon Parsons Iyad Rahwan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L. (2007). An Argumentation-Based Approach for Practical Reasoning. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4766. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75525-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75526-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics