Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

ArgMAS 2007: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems pp 94–113Cite as

Preferences and Assumption-Based Argumentation for Conflict-Free Normative Agents

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4946))

Abstract

Argumentation can serve as an effective computational tool and as a useful abstraction for various agent activities and in particular for agent reasoning. In this paper we further support this claim by mapping a form of normative BDI agents onto assumption-based argumentation. By way of this mapping we equip our agents with the capability of resolving conflicts amongst norms, beliefs, desires and intentions. This conflict resolution is achieved by using a variety of agents’ preferences, ranging from total to partial orderings over norms, beliefs, desires and intentions, to entirely dynamic preferences defined in terms of rules. We define one mapping for each preference representation. We illustrate the mappings with examples and use an existing computational tool for assumption-based argumentation, the CaSAPI system, to animate conflict resolution within our agents. Finally, we study how the different mappings relate to one another.

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

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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reason. 29(2), 125–169 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  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. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1-2), 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., van der Torre, L.: The BOID architecture: Conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In: Proceedings of AGENTS 2001, pp. 9–16. ACM Press, New York (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Casali, A., Godo, L., Sierra, C.: Graded BDI models for agent architectures. In: Jantke, K.P., Lunzer, A., Spyratos, N., Tanaka, Y. (eds.) Federation over the Web. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3847, pp. 126–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dignum, F., Morley, D., Sonenberg, E., Cavendon, L.: Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents. In: Proceedings of ICMAS 2000, pp. 111–118. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Doutre, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Explaining preferences with argument positions. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) IJCAI, pp. 1560–1561. Professional Book Center (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dung, P.: The acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming and n-person game. Artificial Intelligence 77 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170, 114–159 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Technical report, Imperial College London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Identifying audience preferences in legal and social domains. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 518–527 (September 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gaertner, D., Clark, K., Sergot, M.: Ballroom etiquette: A case study for norm-governed multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Coordination, Organisation, Institutions and Norms (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gaertner, D., Noriega, P., Sierra, C.: Extending the BDI architecture with commitments. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Catalan Association of Artificial Intelligence (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: Conflict-free normative agents using assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: A credulous and sceptical argumentation system. In: Proceedings of ArgNMR (2007), www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~dg00/casapi.html

  18. García, A., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.-A.: An Algorithm for Conflict Resolution in Regulated Compound Activities. In: ESAW workshop (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Giunchiglia, F., Serafini, L.: Multi-language hierarchical logics or: How we can do without modal logics. Artificial Intelligence 65(1), 29–70 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Kakas, A., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 33–37 (August 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2003, pp. 883–890 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kollingbaum, M., Norman, T.: Strategies for resolving norm conflict in practical reasoning. In: ECAI Workshop Coordination in Emergent Agent Societies (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Journal of AI and Law, Special Issue on Logical Models of Argumentation 4(3-4), 275–296 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI-agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, San Francisco (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: Normative KGP agents. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 12(2/3), 101–126 (2006)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: Normative kgp agents. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 12(2-3) (October 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sartor, G.: Normative conflicts in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(2-3), 209–235 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation for closed and consistent defeasible reasoning. In: Satoh, K., Inokuchi, A., Nagao, K., Kawamura, T. (eds.) JSAI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4914, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation for selection and composition of services. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA VIII) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK

    Dorian Gaertner & Francesca Toni

Authors
  1. Dorian Gaertner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca Toni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Iyad Rahwan Simon Parsons Chris Reed

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gaertner, D., Toni, F. (2008). Preferences and Assumption-Based Argumentation for Conflict-Free Normative Agents. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4946. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78915-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78915-4_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-78914-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-78915-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation