Con ict-free normative agents using assumption-based argumentation

Argumentation can serve as a useful abstraction for various agent activities and in particular for agent reasoning. In this paper we further support this claim by mapping a form of normative BDI agents onto assumption-based argumentation. By way of this mapping we equip our agents with the capability of resolving con icts amongst norms, beliefs, desires and intentions. This con ict resolution is achieved by using the agent's preferences, represented in a variety of formats. We illustrate the mapping with examples and use an existing computational tool for assumption-based argumentation, the CaSAPI system, to animate conict resolution within our agents.

[1]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Multilanguage hierarchical logics (or: how we can do without modal logics) , 1994, CNKBS.

[2]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[4]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Agents That Reason and Negotiate by Arguing , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[5]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[6]  Geipel,et al.  [Ni] , 2000, Angewandte Chemie.

[7]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires , 2001, AGENTS '01.

[8]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[9]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Abstract argumentation , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[10]  Giovanni Sartor,et al.  Normative conflicts in legal reasoning , 1992, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[11]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  The KGP Model of Agency , 2004, ECAI.

[12]  Martin J. Kollingbaum,et al.  Strategies for resolving Norm Conflicts in Practical Reasoning , 2004 .

[13]  Lluis Godo,et al.  Graded BDI Models for Agent Architectures , 2004, CLIMA.

[14]  N. Iyadrahwa,et al.  Argumentation-based negotiation , 2004 .

[15]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks , 2002, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[16]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation , 2006, COMMA.

[18]  Pablo Noriega,et al.  Extending the BDI architecture with commitments , 2006, CCIA.

[19]  Keith L. Clark,et al.  Ballroom etiquette: A Case Study for Norm-Governed Multi-Agent Systems , 2006, COIN@AAMAS/ECAI.

[20]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Normative KGP agents , 2006, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[21]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Computing ideal sceptical argumentation , 2007, Artif. Intell..