research-article

A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoning

Authors:

Caroline Devred,

Marie-Christine Lagasquie-SchiexAuthors Info & Claims

AAMAS '08: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 1

Pages 429 - 436

Published: 12 May 2008 Publication History

Abstract

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-ends reasoning, in which the agent looks for plans for achieving these desires. A desire is justified if it holds in the current state of the world, and feasible if there is a plan for achieving it. The agent's intentions 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 consistency and the completeness of the results.

References

[1]

L. Amgoud. A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In Proc. of ECSQARU'03, pages 552--563. 2003.

[2]

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

Digital Library

[3]

L. Amgoud and S. Kaci. On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In Proc. of ArgMAS. 2004.

Digital Library

[4]

K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Justifying practical reasoning. In Proc. of CMNA'04, 2004.

[5]

M. Caminada and L. Amgoud. An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In Proc. of AAAI'05, pages 608--613. AAAI Press, 2005.

Digital Library

[6]

C. Cayrol. On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In Proceedings of IJCAI'95, pages 1443 -- 1448, 1995.

Digital Library

[7]

C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of ECSQARU'05 - LNAI 3571, pages 378--389, 2005.

Digital Library

[8]

S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, and P. Marquis. Symmetric argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of ECSQARU'05, pages 317--328, 2005.

Digital Library

[9]

S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, and P. Marquis. Constrained argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of KR' 06, pages 112--122, 2006.

[10]

P. M. Dung. 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]

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

Digital Library

[12]

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

[13]

J. Hulstijn and L. van der Torre. Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In Proc. of BNAIC'03, pages 155--162, 2003.

[14]

I. Rahwan and L. Amgoud. An Argumentation-based Approach for Practical Reasoning. In Proc. of AAMAS'06, pages 347--354, 2006.

Digital Library

[15]

J. Raz. Practical reasoning. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978.

[16]

S. Russel and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence. A modern approach. Prentice hall, 1995.

Digital Library

[17]

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

Digital Library

[18]

R. H. Thomason. Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In Proc. of KR'2000.

[19]

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

Digital Library

[20]

D. Walton. Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning, volume 29. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

[21]

M. J. Wooldridge. Reasoning about Rational Agents. MIT Press, 2000.

Cited By

Gottifredi SRotstein NGarcía ASimari G(2013)Using argument strength for building dialectical bonsaiAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s10472-013-9338-x69:1(103-129)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10472-013-9338-x
Rotstein NGottifredi SGarcía ASimari G(2011)A heuristics-based pruning technique for argumentation treesProceedings of the 5th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management10.5555/2050266.2050284(177-190)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2050266.2050284
Black EAtkinson KSonenberg LStone PTumer KYolum P(2011)Choosing persuasive arguments for actionThe 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 310.5555/2034396.2034398(905-912)Online publication date: 2-May-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2034396.2034398
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoning
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Distributed artificial intelligence
    2. Knowledge representation and reasoning
  2. Symbolic and algebraic manipulation
    1. Symbolic and algebraic algorithms
      1. Theorem proving algorithms

Recommendations

A Constrained Argumentation System for Practical Reasoning
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

<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>...
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 ...
Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems

In this paper we describe an approach to practical reasoning, reasoning about what it is best for a particular agent to do in a given situation, based on presumptive justifications of action through the instantiation of an argument scheme, which is then ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

AAMAS '08: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 1

May 2008

565 pages

ISBN:9780981738109

Program Chairs:
Lin Padgham
RMIT University, Australia
,
David Parkes
Harvard University

Sponsors

ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
AAAI: Association for the Advancement of Artifical Intelligence

Publisher

International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

Richland, SC

Publication History

Published: 12 May 2008

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

AAMAS08

Sponsor:

ACM
AAAI

AAMAS08: 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems

May 12 - 16, 2008

Estoril, Portugal

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
130
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)1
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Gottifredi SRotstein NGarcía ASimari G(2013)Using argument strength for building dialectical bonsaiAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s10472-013-9338-x69:1(103-129)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10472-013-9338-x
Rotstein NGottifredi SGarcía ASimari G(2011)A heuristics-based pruning technique for argumentation treesProceedings of the 5th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management10.5555/2050266.2050284(177-190)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2050266.2050284
Black EAtkinson KSonenberg LStone PTumer KYolum P(2011)Choosing persuasive arguments for actionThe 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 310.5555/2034396.2034398(905-912)Online publication date: 2-May-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2034396.2034398
Gottifredi SGarcia ASimari G(2010)Query-based argumentation in agent programmingProceedings of the 12th Ibero-American conference on Advances in artificial intelligence10.5555/1948131.1948169(284-295)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1948131.1948169
Devred CDoutre SLefèvre CNicolas P(2010)Dialectical Proofs for Constrained ArgumentationProceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 201010.5555/1860828.1860845(159-170)Online publication date: 5-Aug-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1860828.1860845

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents