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.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
References
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)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated planning, theory and practice. Elsevier, Morgan Kaufmann (2004)
Harman, G.: Practical aspects of theoretical reasoning. The Oxford Handbook of Rationality, 45–56 (2004)
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)
Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D.: Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the hermes system. Information systems 26(4), 259–277 (2001)
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)
Raz, J.: Practical reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1978)
Russel, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence. A modern approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1995)
Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)
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)
Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90(1–2), 225–279 (1997)
Walton, D.: Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning, vol. 29. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)
Wooldridge, M.J.: Reasoning about Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)
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
Amgoud, L., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, MC. (2009). A Constrained Argumentation System for Practical Reasoning. 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_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6_3
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)