Nested Argumentation and Its Application to Decision Making over Actions

  • S. Modgil
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


In this paper we describe a framework in which the grounds for one argument’s defeat of another is itself subject to argumentation. Hence, given two conflicting arguments, each of which defeat the other, one can then determine the preferred defeat and hence the preferred argument. We then apply this nested argumentation to selection of an agent’s preferred ‘instrumental’ arguments, where each such argument represents a plan of actions for realising an agent’s goals.


Multiagent System Initial Goal Argumentation Framework Realisation Tree Argumentation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the use of an ATMS for handling conflicting desires. In: Proc. Ninth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pp. 175–182 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASPIC. Deliverable D2.2 - Draft formal semantics for inference and decision-makingGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkinson, K.M., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3366, pp. 149–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: A framework for deliberation dialogues. In: Hansen, H.V., et al. (eds.) Proc. Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In: Proc. 15th Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proc. Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 883–890. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481–518 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reed, C., Norman, T.J. (eds.): Argument and multi-agent systems. In: Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation, ch. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Modgil
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Computation LabCancer Research UKLondon

Personalised recommendations