Skip to main content

Defeasible Argumentation Support for an Extended BDI Architecture

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4946))

Abstract

In this work, an agent architecture that combines defeasible argumentation and the BDI model is described. Argumentation will be used as a mechanism for reasoning about beliefs, for filtering desires considering the agent’s current environment, and for selecting proper intentions. The approach allows to define different types of agents and this will affect the way in which desires are filtered and hence, which intention is selected. For performing defeasible reasoning, the approach uses a concrete framework based on a working defeasible argumentation system: Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP). A set of filtering rules, represented as a defeasible logic program, will be used to represent reasons for and against adopting desires. Thus, based on its perceived or derived beliefs, the agent will argue about which of its desires are achievable in the current situation. To clarify the ideas two applications will be introduced to show two significantly different types of agent that can be implemented using this approach.

Partially supported by CONICET, ANPCyT, and UNSur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Rotstein, N., García, A., Simari, G.: Reasoning from desires to intentions: A dialectical framework. In: Proceedings of the 22nd. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 136–141 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Lifschitz, V.: Foundations of logic programming. In: Brewka, G. (ed.) Principles of Knowledge Representation. CSLI, pp. 69–127 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rotstein, N., García, A.: Defeasible reasoning about beliefs and desires. In: Proc. of the 11th NMR, pp. 429–436 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Falappa, M., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G.: Belief revision, explanations and defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal 141, 1–28 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Fuhrmann, A.: An Essay on Contraction. In: Studies in Logic, Language and Information, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bratman, M.E., Israel, D., Pollack, M.: Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. In: Cummins, R., Pollock, J.L. (eds.) Philosophy and AI: Essays at the Interface, pp. 1–22. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Thomason, R.: Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In: Proc. of the seventh KR, pp. 702–713 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., van der Torre, L.: The boid architecture: conficts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In: Proc. of 5th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents, pp. 9–16. ACM Press, New York (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In: Proc. of the 5th AAMAS (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. García, A., Rotstein, N., Tucat, M., Simari, G.: An Argumentative Reasoning Service for Deliberative Agents. In: Zhang, Z., Siekmann, J.H. (eds.) KSEM 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4798, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Iyad Rahwan Simon Parsons Chris Reed

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rotstein, N.D., García, A.J., Simari, G.R. (2008). Defeasible Argumentation Support for an Extended BDI Architecture. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4946. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78915-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78915-4_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-78914-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-78915-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics