Advertisement

Argumentation-based Normative Practical Reasoning

  • Zohreh ShamsEmail author
  • Marina De Vos
  • Nir Oren
  • Julian Padget
  • Ken Satoh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9524)

Abstract

Reasoning about what is best for an agent to do in a particular situation is a challenging task. What makes it even more challenging in a dynamic environment is the existence of norms that aim to regulate a self-interested agent’s behaviour. Practical reasoning is reasoning about what to do in a given situation, particularly in the presence of conflicts between the agent’s practical attitude such as goals, plans and norms. In this paper we: (i) introduce a formal model for normative practical reasoning that allows an agent to plan for multiple and potentially conflicting goals and norms at the same time (ii) identify the best plan(s) for the agent to execute by means of argumentation schemes and critical questions (iii) justify the best plan(s) via an argumentation-based persuasion dialogue for grounded semantics.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L.: A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 552–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34, 1–3 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoning. In: Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P. (eds.) ArgMAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5384, pp. 37–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 855–874 (2007)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Giunchiglia, E., (eds.) Non Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 443–454 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K.: Action-State Semantics for Practical Reasoning. In: The Uses of Computational Argumentation, Papers from the 2009 AAAI Fall Symposium, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 5–7 November 2009. vol. FS-09-06. AAAI Technical report. AAAI (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blum, A.L., Furst, M.L.: Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artif. Intell. 90(1), 281–300 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., van der Torre, L.: The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents. AGENTS 2001. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 9–16. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M.: Grounded semantics as persuasion dialogue. In: Verheij, B., Szeider, S., Woltran, S., (eds.) Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2012, Vienna, Austria, 10–12 September 2012, vol. 245. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, pp. 478–485 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Criado, N., Argente, E., Julián, V., Botti, V.: A BDI architecture for normative decision making. In: van der Hoek, W., Kaminka, G.A., Lespérance, Y., Luck, M., Sen, S., (eds.) 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010), Toronto, Canada, 10–14 May 2010, vol. 1–3, pp. 1383–1384. IFAAMAS (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Vos, M., Balke, T., Satoh, K.: Combining event-and state-based norms. In: Gini, M.L., Shehory, O., Ito, T., Jonker, C.M., (eds.) International conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS 2013, Saint Paul, MN, USA, 6–10 May 2013, pp. 1157–1158. IFAAMAS (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fikes, R.E., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 2Nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1971, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 608–620. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., (1971)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In: Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., (eds.) Non Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 212–218 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kollingbaum, M.J., Norman, T.J.: NoA - A normative agent architecture. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T., (eds.) IJCAI-2003, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico, 9–15 August 2003, pp. 1465–1466. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oren, N.: Argument schemes for normative practical reasoning. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8306, pp. 63–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oren, N., Croitoru, M., Miles, S., Luck, M.: Understanding permissions through graphical norms. In: Omicini, A., Sardina, S., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) DALT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6619, pp. 167–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prakken, H.: Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M, (eds.) Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, 11–12 September 2006, Liverpool, UK, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, vol. 144, pp. 311–322 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 74–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Toniolo, A., Norman, T.J., Sycara, K.P.: An empirical study of argumentation schemes for deliberative dialogue. In: De Raedt, L., Bessière, C., Dubois, D., Doherty, P., Frasconi, P., Heintz, F., Lucas, P.J.F., (eds.) ECAI 2012–20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence (PAIS-2012) System Demonstrations Track, Montpellier, France, 27–31 August 2012, vol. 242. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, pp. 756–761 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Douglas, D.N.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wooldridge, M., van der Hoek, W.: On obligations and normative ability: towards a logical analysis of the social contract. J. Appl. Log. 4(3–4), 396–420 (2006)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zohreh Shams
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marina De Vos
    • 1
  • Nir Oren
    • 2
  • Julian Padget
    • 1
  • Ken Satoh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BathBathUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  3. 3.National Institute of InformaticsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations