chapter

A Constrained Argumentation System for Practical Reasoning

Authors:

Caroline Devred,

Marie-Christine Lagasquie-SchiexAuthors Info & Claims

Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Fifth International Workshop, ArgMAS 2008, Estoril, Portugal, May 12, 2008. Revised Selected and Invited Papers

February 2009

Pages 37 - 56

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6_3

Published: 04 February 2009 Publication History

Abstract

<em>Practical reasoning</em> (PR), which is concerned with the generic question of what to do, is generally seen as a two steps process: (1) <em>deliberation</em>, in which an agent decides what state of affairs it wants to reach ---that is, its <em>desires</em> ; and (2) <em>means-ends reasoning</em>, in which the agent looks for plans for achieving these desires. A desire is <em>justified</em> if it holds in the current state of the world, and <em>feasible</em> if there is a plan for achieving it. The agent's <em>intentions</em> are thus a consistent subset of desires that are both justified and feasible. This paper proposes the first argumentation system for PR that computes in one step the intentions of an agent, allowing thus to avoid the drawbacks of the existing systems. The proposed system is grounded on a recent work on constrained argumentation systems, and satisfies the rationality postulates identified in argumentation literature, namely the <em>consistency</em> and the <em>completeness</em> of the results.

References

[1]

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

[2]

Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning 29(2), 125-169 (2002).

[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, vol. 3366, Springer, Heidelberg (2005).

[4]

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

[5]

Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), pp. 608-613. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005).

Digital Library

[6]

Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artifitial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 1443-1448 (1995).

[7]

Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS, vol. 3571, pp. 378-389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).

[8]

Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Symmetric argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS, vol. 3571, pp. 317-328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).

[9]

Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 112-122 (2006).

[10]

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).

Digital Library

[11]

Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated planning, theory and practice. Elsevier, Morgan Kaufmann (2004).

[12]

Harman, G.: Practical aspects of theoretical reasoning. The Oxford Handbook of Rationality, 45-56 (2004).

[13]

Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In: Heskes, T., Lucas, P., Vuurpijl, L., Wiegerinck, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2003), Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, October 2003, pp. 155-162 (2003).

[14]

Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D.: Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information systems 26(4), 259-277 (2001).

[15]

Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An Argumentation-based Approach for Practical Reasoning. In: Weiss, G., Stone, P. (eds.) 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi Agent Systems, AAMAS 2006, Hakodate, Japan, pp. 347-354. ACM Press, New York (2006).

[16]

Raz, J.: Practical reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1978).

[17]

Russel, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence. A modern approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1995).

[18]

Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125-157 (1992).

Digital Library

[19]

Thomason, R.H.: Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In: Cohn, A.G., Giunchiglia, F., Selman, B. (eds.) KR 2000: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, pp. 702-713. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000).

[20]

Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90(1-2), 225-279 (1997).

Digital Library

[21]

Walton, D.: Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning, vol. 29. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996).

[22]

Wooldridge, M.J.: Reasoning about Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000).

Cited By

Morveli-Espinoza MTacla CJasinski H(2020)An Argumentation-Based Approach for Explaining Goals Selection in Intelligent AgentsIntelligent Systems10.1007/978-3-030-61380-8_4(47-62)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-61380-8_4
de Saint-Cyr FGuillaume RMushtaq U(2019)Explainable Decisions under Incomplete Knowledge with Supports and Weights2019 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE)10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2019.8858932(1-6)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2019.8858932

Recommendations

A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoning
AAMAS '08: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 1

Practical reasoning (PR), which is concerned with the generic question of what to do, is generally seen as a two steps process: (1) deliberation, in which an agent decides what state of affairs it wants to reach -- that is, its desires; and (2) means-...
Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning
Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law

In this paper we apply a general account of practical reasoning to arguing about legal cases. In particular, we provide a reconstruction of the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions for a particular well-known case from property law. This is ...
Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks

The abstract nature of Dung's seminal theory of argumentation accounts for its widespread application as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and, more generally, reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung argumentation ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide books

Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Fifth International Workshop, ArgMAS 2008, Estoril, Portugal, May 12, 2008. Revised Selected and Invited Papers

February 2009

228 pages

ISBN:9783642002069

Editors:
Iyad Rahwan
Faculty of Informatics, British University in Dubai, Dubau, United Arab Emirates
,
Pavlos Moraitis
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Paris Descartes University, Paris Cedex 06, France 75270

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 04 February 2009

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Chapter

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 03 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Morveli-Espinoza MTacla CJasinski H(2020)An Argumentation-Based Approach for Explaining Goals Selection in Intelligent AgentsIntelligent Systems10.1007/978-3-030-61380-8_4(47-62)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-61380-8_4
de Saint-Cyr FGuillaume RMushtaq U(2019)Explainable Decisions under Incomplete Knowledge with Supports and Weights2019 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE)10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2019.8858932(1-6)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2019.8858932

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents