Abstract
Norms represent what ought to be done, and their fulfillment can be seen as benefiting the overall system, society or organisation. However, individual agent goals (desire) may conflict with system norms. If a decision to comply with a norm is determined exclusively by an agent or, conversely, if norms are rigidly enforced, then system performance may be degraded, and individual agent goals may be inappropriately obstructed. To prevent such deleterious effects we propose a general framework for argumentation-based resolution of conflicts amongst desires and norms. In this framework, arguments for and against compliance are arguments justifying rewards, respectively punishments, exacted by ‘enforcing’ agents. The arguments are evaluated in a recent extension to Dung’s abstract argumentation framework, in order that the agents can engage in metalevel argumentation as to whether the rewards and punishments have the required motivational force. We provide an example instantiation of the framework based on a logic programming formalism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L.: Using Preferences to Select Acceptable Arguments. In: Proc. 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 43–44 (1998)
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, vol. 3366, pp. 192–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
ASPIC Deliverable D2.1: Theoretical frameworks for argumentation. (June 2004), http://www.argumentation.org/PublicDeliverables.htm
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93, 63–101 (1997)
Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Goal Generation in the BOID Architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly Journal 2(3-4), 428–447 (2002)
Dastani, M., van der Torre, L.: Programming BOID-Plan Agents: Deliberating about Conflicts among Defeasible Mental Attitudes and Plans. In: Proc 3rd Int. Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 706–713 (2004)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
d’Inverno, M., Luck, M.: Understanding agent systems, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg
Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proc. Second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 883–890 (2003)
Lopez, F., Lopez, Y., Luck, M., D’Inverno, M.: A normative framework for agent-based systems. J. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 12(2-3), 227–250 (2006)
Modgil, S.: An Abstract Theory of Argumentation That Accommodates Defeasible Reasoning About Preferences. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS, vol. 4724, pp. 648–659. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Modgil, S.: Reasoning About Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks. Technical Report, http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/modgilsa/ArguingAboutPreferences.pdf
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)
Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of logic and computation 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)
Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: Conflict-free normative agents using assumption-basedargumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS, vol. 4946. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Moses, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: Artificial Social Systems. Computers and AI 14(6), 533–562 (1995)
Vreeswijk, G.: An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In: Proc. 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 109–120 (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Modgil, S., Luck, M. (2009). Argumentation Based Resolution of Conflicts between Desires and Normative Goals. In: Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5384. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00206-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00207-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)