Argumentation-based Normative Practical Reasoning

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.

[1]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Action-State Semantics for Practical Reasoning , 2009, AAAI Fall Symposium: The Uses of Computational Argumentation.

[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]  Michael Luck,et al.  Understanding Permissions through Graphical Norms , 2010, DALT.

[4]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract , 2005, J. Appl. Log..

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

[6]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[7]  Richard Fikes,et al.  STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving , 1971, IJCAI.

[8]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework , 2004, NMR.

[9]  Leila Amgoud,et al.  A Formal Framework for Handling Conflicting Desires , 2003, ECSQARU.

[10]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  An Empirical Study of Argumentation Schemes for Deliberative Dialogue , 2012, ECAI.

[11]  Avrim Blum,et al.  Fast Planning Through Planning Graph Analysis , 1995, IJCAI.

[12]  Marina De Vos,et al.  Combining event-and state-based norms , 2013, AAMAS.

[13]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation , 2006, JELIA.

[14]  Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex,et al.  A Constrained Argumentation System for Practical Reasoning , 2008, ArgMAS.

[15]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Value-based argumentation frameworks , 2002, NMR.

[16]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning , 2006, COMMA.

[17]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  An Argumentation-Based Approach for Practical Reasoning , 2006, ArgMAS.

[18]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments , 2002, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[20]  Martin Caminada,et al.  Grounded Semantics as Persuasion Dialogue , 2012, COMMA.

[21]  Martin J. Kollingbaum,et al.  NoA - A Normative Agent Architecture , 2003, IJCAI.

[22]  Nir Oren,et al.  Argument Schemes for Normative Practical Reasoning , 2013, TAFA.

[23]  Natalia Criado,et al.  A BDI architecture for normative decision making , 2010, AAMAS.