Advertisement

Argumentation Schemes for Collaborative Planning

  • Alice Toniolo
  • Timothy J. Norman
  • Katia Sycara
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7047)

Abstract

We address the collaborative planning problem among agents where they have different objectives and norms. In this context, agreeing on the best course of action to adopt represents a significant challenge. Concurrent actions and causal plan-constraints may lead to conflicts of opinion on what to do. Moreover, individual norms can constrain agent behaviour. We propose an argumentation-based model for deliberative dialogues based on argumentation schemes. This model facilitates agreements about joint plans by enriching the quality of the dialogue through the exchange of relevant information about plan commitments and norms.

Keywords

Argumentation schemes Practical reasoning Planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 855–874 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belesiotis, A., Rovatsos, M., Rahwan, I.: A Generative Dialogue System for Arguing about Plans in Situation Calculus. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 23–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K.: Action-state semantics for practical reasoning. In: Proceeding of the Fall Symposium on the Uses of Computational Argument (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demolombe, R., Pozos-Parra, P.: The Chisholm Paradox and the Situation Calculus. In: Hacid, M.-S., Murray, N.V., Raś, Z.W., Tsumoto, S. (eds.) ISMIS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3488, pp. 425–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S.: The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1), 95–132 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oren, N., Luck, M., Miles, S., Norman, T.J.: An argumentation inspired heuristic for resolving normative conflict. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pinto, J.A., Reiter, R.: Reasoning about time in the situation calculus. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 14, 251–268 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 347–354 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walton, D.N.: Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alice Toniolo
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Norman
    • 1
  • Katia Sycara
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenScotlandUK
  2. 2.Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations