Argumentation Based Resolution of Conflicts between Desires and Normative Goals

Norms represent what ought to be done, and their fulfillment can be seen as benefiting the overall system, society or organisation. However, individual agent goals (desire) may conflict with system norms. If a decision to comply with a norm is determined exclusively by an agent or, conversely, if norms are rigidly enforced, then system performance may be degraded, and individual agent goals may be inappropriately obstructed. To prevent such deleterious effects we propose a general framework for argumentation-based resolution of conflicts amongst desires and norms. In this framework, arguments for and against compliance are arguments justifying rewards, respectively punishments, exacted by `enforcing' agents. The arguments are evaluated in a recent extension to Dung's abstract argumentation framework, in order that the agents can engage in metalevel argumentation as to whether the rewards and punishments have the required motivational force. We provide an example instantiation of the framework based on a logic programming formalism.

[1]  Gerard Vreeswijk.  An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems , 2006, COMMA.

[2]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  Goal generation in the BOID architecture , 2002 .

[3]  Souhila Kaci,et al.  On the Generation of Bipolar Goals in Argumentation-Based Negotiation , 2004, ArgMAS.

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

[5]  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..

[6]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Artificial Social Systems , 1992, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  Michael Clarke,et al.  Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[8]  Timo Steffens,et al.  Understanding Agent Systems , 2004, Künstliche Intell..

[9]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation , 2005, J. Log. Comput..

[10]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Preferences and Assumption-Based Argumentation for Conflict-Free Normative Agents , 2007, ArgMAS.

[12]  Michael Luck,et al.  Understanding Agent Systems , 2001, Springer Series on Agent Technology.

[13]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  Programming BOID-plan agents deliberating about conflicts among defeasible mental attitudes and plans , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[14]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  An Abstract Theory of Argumentation That Accommodates Defeasible Reasoning About Preferences , 2007, ECSQARU.

[15]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[17]  Leila Amgoud.  Using Preferences to Select Acceptable Arguments , 1998, ECAI.

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

[19]  Michael Luck,et al.  A normative framework for agent-based systems , 2006, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.