Toward Justifying Actions with Logically and Socially Acceptable Reasons
This paper formalizes argument-based reasoning for actions supported by believable reasons in terms of nonmonotonic consequences and desirable reasons in terms of Pareto optimality and maximizing social welfare functions. Our unified approach gives a four-layer practical argumentation framework structured with a propositional modal language with defaults and defeasible inference rules associated with practical reasoning. We show that the unified argument-based reasoning justifies an argument whose conclusion is supported by Pareto optimal, social welfare maximizing and nonmonotonic consequence reasons. Our formalization contributes to extend argument-based reasoning so that it can formally combine reasoning about logical believability and social desirability by benefiting from economic notions.
KeywordsInference Rule Pareto Optimal Solution Pareto Optimality Social Welfare Function Argumentation Framework
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Kido, H., Nitta, K.: Practical argumentation semantics for socially efficient defeasible consequence. In: Proc. of The Tenth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 267–274 (2011)Google Scholar
- 4.Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of The 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 150–155 (2008)Google Scholar
- 5.Rosenschein, J.S., Zlotkin, G.: Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. The MIT Press (1994)Google Scholar
- 6.Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons (2009)Google Scholar
- 8.Prakken, H.: A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: Proc. of The 10th International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law’, pp. 85–94 (2005)Google Scholar
- 9.Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Prakken, H.: Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In: Proc. of The First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 247–258 (2006)Google Scholar