Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Hedgehog and the Fox

An Argumentation-Based Decision Support System

  • Conference paper
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2007)

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

Included in the following conference series:

  • 385 Accesses

Abstract

In this paper, we present a decision support system which is built upon an argumentation framework for practical reasoning. A logic language is used as a concrete data structure for holding statements representing knowledge, goals, and decisions. Different priorities are attached to these items, corresponding to the probability of the knowledge, the preferences between goals, and the expected utilities of decisions. These concrete data structures consist of information providing the backbone of arguments. Due to the abductive nature of practical reasoning, arguments are built by reasoning backwards, and possibly by making suppositions over missing information. Moreover, arguments are defined as tree-like structures. In this way, our computer system, implemented in Prolog, suggests some solutions and provides an interactive and intelligible explanation of this choice.

The author would like to thank Paolo Mancarella for his contribution on a previous version of this paper. This work is supported by the Sixth Framework IST programme of the EC, under the 035200 ARGUGRID project.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berlin, S.I.: The Hedgehog and the Fox. Simon & Schuster (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stournaras, T. (ed.): Concrete scenarios identification & simple use cases. Delivrable document D1.1 ARGUGRID (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clemen, R.T.: Making Hard Decisions. Duxbury. Press (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Maths and AI 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Ralf Schweimeier, M.S.: Notions of attack and justified arguments for extended logic programs. In: van Harmelen, F. (ed.) Proc. of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2002), Amsterdam, pp. 536–540. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Vreeswijk, G., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gartner, D., Toni, F.: CaSAPI: a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation. In: Simari, G., Torroni, P. (eds.) Proc. Workshop on Argumentation for Non-monotonic Reasoning, pp. 80–95 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114–159 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Fox, J., Parsons, S.: On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values. In: Doyle, J., Thomason, R.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Working Papers of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, Standford, pp. 55–63 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Oliver, R.M., Smith, J.Q. (eds.): Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Raz, J. (ed.): Practical Reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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, pp. 192–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Thomason, R.H.: Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In: Proc. of the seventh International Confenrence on Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 702–713 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In: Proc. of the 9h International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), pp. 212–218 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In: Proc. of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 347–354. ACM Press, New York (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Simari, G.R., García, A.J., C., M.: Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Whistler BC, Canada, pp. 377–384 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentative-based decision-making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 883–890. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, special issue on Knowledge, Rationality and Action 152(2), 157–206 (2006)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., Tsoukias, A.: Arguing over actions that involve multiple criteria: A critical review. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Comparing decisions in an argumentation-based setting. In: Proc. of the 11th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2006), Session on Argumentation, Dialogue, and Decision Making, Lake District, UK, pp. 426–432 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In: Proc. of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2006), Boston, Boston, pp. 16–20 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H.: Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In: Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 247–258. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, via F. Buonarroti, 2, I-56127, Pisa, Italy

    Maxime Morge

Authors
  1. Maxime Morge
    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

Morge, M. (2008). The Hedgehog and the Fox. 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_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78915-4_8

  • 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