Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 127–151 | Cite as

Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments

  • Marcela Capobianco
  • Carlos I. Chesñevar
  • Guillermo R. Simari


One of the most difficult problems in Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) involves representing the knowledge and beliefs of an agent which performs its tasks in a dynamic environment. New perceptions modify this agent’s current knowledge about the world, and consequently its beliefs about it also change. Such a revision and update process should be performed efficiently by the agent, particularly in the context of real-time constraints. In the last decade argumentation has evolved as a successful approach to formalize defeasible, commonsense reasoning, gaining wide acceptance in the MAS community by providing tools for designing and implementing features, which characterize reasoning capabilities in rational agents. In this paper we present a new argument-based formalism specifically designed for representing knowledge and beliefs of agents in dynamic environments, called Observation-based Defeasible Logic Programming (ODeLP). A simple but effective perception mechanism allows an ODeLP-based agent to model new incoming perceptions, and modify the agent’s knowledge about the world accordingly. In addition, in order to improve the reactive capabilities of ODeLP-based agents, the process of computing beliefs in a changing environment is made computationally attractive by integrating a “dialectical database” with the agent’s program, providing pre-compiled information about previous inferences. We present algorithms for managing dialectical databases as well as examples of their use in the context of real-world problems.


argumentation logic programming defeasible logic programming multi-agent systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. J. Wooldridge, Introduction to Multiagent Systems. Wiley, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A., Loui, R. 2000“Logical models of argument,” ACM ComputSurv., Vol32337383Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk, “Logical systems for defeasible argumentation,” in D. Gabbay, (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 4, Kluwer Academic Publisher: Dordrecht 2002, pp. 219–318.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, “Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases,” New Generation Comput., pp. 365–385, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    García, A., Simari, G. 2004“Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach.”Theory and Practice of Logic Programming495138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D. 1985“ On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions.”Symbolic Logic J50510530Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon, “On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it,” in P. Gardenfors (ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 183–203.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gäardenfors, P. 1998Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic StatesThe MIT Press, Bradford BooksCambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. L. Pollock, “Taking perception seriously,” in: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agent, 1997, pp. 526–527.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doyle, J. 1979“A truth maintenance system.”Artif, Intell12231272Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kleer, J. 1986“An assumption-based TMS.”Artif, Intell28127162Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleer, J. 1989

    “A comparison of ATMS and CSP techniques.”

    Sridharan, N. S. eds. Proceedings of the 11th IJCAIWorkshop on Practical Reasoning and RationalityDetroit, USA290296
    Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elkan, C. 1990“A rational reconstruction of nonmonotonic truth maintenance systems.”Artif, Intell43219234Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. McAllester, “Truth maintenance,” in R. Smith and T. Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 2., American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, 1990, pp. 1109–1116.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forbus, K., Kleer, J. 1993)Building Problem SolversMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. L. Brown,“Modal propositional semantics for reason maintenance systems,” in: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1985, pp. 178–183.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R. 2000“Logical models of argument”ACM Comput Surv32337383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Reed and T. E. Norman, Argumentation Machines – New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, vol. 9 of Series Argumentation Library, Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G. 1997“Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities”Appl, Non-classical Logics725752Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L. 2003“ Argumentation-based negotiation”Knowl. Eng. Rev18343375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carbogim, D., Robertson, D., Lee, J. 2000“Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering”Knowl. Eng. Rev15119149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. I. Chesñevar, G. Simari, T. Alsinet and L. Godo,“A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation with vague knowledge,” in: Proceedings of the International Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2004), Canada, 2004, pp. 76–84.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    C. I. Chesñevar, G. Simari, T. Alsinet, and L. Godo, “Modelling agent reasoning in a logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation,” in: Proceedings of the 2nd European Workshop on Multiagent Systems. Barcelona, Spain, 2004, pp. 135–142.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simari, G.R., Loui R., P. 1992“A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation”Artif Intell53125157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. W. Lloyd, Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer–Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. L. Poole, “On the comparison of theories: preferring the most specific explanation,” in: Proceedings of the 9th IJCAIs, 1985, pp. 144–147.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Capobianco, M. 2003“Argumentación rebatible en entornos dinámicos”Universidad Nacional del SurBahía Blanca ArgentinaPh.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. R. Simari, C. I. Chesñevar, and A. J. García, “The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation,” in: Proceedings of the XIV Conferencia Internacional de la Sociedad Chilena para Ciencias de la Computación, 1994, pp. 111–121.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chesñevar, C., Dix, J., Stolzenburg, F., Simari, G. 2003“Relating defeasible and normal logic programming through transformation properties”Theor Comput Sci290499529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. J. Alferes and L. M. Pereira, “On logic program semantics with two kinds of negation,” in: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, USA, 1992, pp. 574–588.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    C. Chesñevar and G. R. Simari, “Distinguishing ground from nonground information in defeasible argumentation,” in: Proceedings del I Congreso Argentino en Ciencias de la Computación, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina, 1995, pp. 527–538.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. J. García, C. I. Chesñevar, and G. R. Simari,“ Making argumentative systems computationally attractive,” in: XIII International Conference of the Chilenean Computer Science Society, 1993, pp. 335–344.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C. Baral and M. Gelfond, “Reasoning agents in dynamic domains,” in: J. Minker, (ed.), Workshop on Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, College Park, Maryland, Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, 1999.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol,“On the use of an atms for handling conflicting desires,” in: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (KR2004), 2004, pp. 194–202.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Phan Minh, Dung. 1995“On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games”Artif. Intell77321358CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcela Capobianco
    • 1
  • Carlos I. Chesñevar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guillermo R. Simari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Artificial Intelligence Research and Development LaboratoryUniversidad Nacional del SurBahía BlancaArgentina
  2. 2.Departament of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence Research GroupUniversitat de LleidaLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations