Generating possible intentions with constrained argumentation systems. (English) Zbl 1242.68322

Summary: Practical reasoning (PR), which is concerned with the generic question of what to do, is generally seen as a two steps process: (1) deliberation, in which an agent decides what state of affairs it wants to reach - that is, its desires; and (2) means-ends reasoning, in which the agent looks for plans for achieving these desires. The agent’s intentions are a consistent set of desires that are achievable together.
This paper proposes the first argumentation system for PR that computes in one step the possible intentions of an agent, avoiding thus the drawbacks of the existing systems. The proposed system is grounded on a recent work on constrained argumentation systems, and satisfies the rationality postulates identified in argumentation literature, namely the consistency and the completeness of the results.


68T37 Reasoning under uncertainty in the context of artificial intelligence
68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence


Full Text: DOI


[1] Amgoud, L.; Devred, C.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M., A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoning, (), 429-436
[2] Raz, J., Practical reasoning, (1978), Oxford University Press Oxford
[3] Wooldridge, M.J., Reasoning about rational agents, (2000), MIT Press · Zbl 0998.68094
[4] Amgoud, L.; Prade, H., Formalizing practical reasoning under uncertainty: an argumentation-based approach, (), 189-195
[5] Atkinson, K.; Bench-Capon, T., Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems, Artificial intelligence journal, 171, 855-874, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68558
[6] Walton, D., Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning, vol. 29, (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ, USA
[7] Amgoud, L.; Kaci, S., On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation, () · Zbl 1117.68503
[8] Hulstijn, J.; van der Torre, L., Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework, (), 155-162
[9] Rahwan, I.; Amgoud, L., An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning, (), 347-354
[10] N. Rotstein, A. García, G.R. Simari, Defeasible argumentation support for an extended BDI architecture, in: ArgMAS, 2007, pp. 145-163. · Zbl 1135.68592
[11] S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, P. Marquis, Constrained argumentation frameworks, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’ 06), 2006, pp. 112-122. · Zbl 1122.68642
[12] Dung, P.M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial intelligence, 77, 2, 321-358, (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[13] Caminada, M.; Amgoud, L., On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms, Artificial intelligence, 171, 5-6, 286-310, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68562
[14] Gorogiannis, N.; Hunter, A.; Williams, M., An argument-based approach to reasoning with clinical knowledge, International journal of approximate reasoning, 51, 1, 16-22, (2009) · Zbl 1209.68523
[15] Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; Guida, G., AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks, International journal of approximate reasoning, 52, 1, 19-37, (2011) · Zbl 1211.68433
[16] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M., Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantic, International journal of approximate reasoning, 50, 6, 854-866, (2009) · Zbl 1191.68671
[17] Lang, J.; van der Torre, L.; Weydert, E., Utilitarian desires, Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, 5, 3, 329-363, (2002)
[18] Ghallab, M.; Nau, D.; Traverso, P., Automated planning, theory and practice, (2004), Elsevier, Morgan Kaufmann · Zbl 1074.68613
[19] Russel, S.; Norvig, P., Artificial intelligence, A modern approach, (1995), Prentice-Hall · Zbl 0835.68093
[20] Harman, G., Practical aspects of theoretical reasoning, The Oxford handbook of rationality, 45-56, (2004)
[21] Simari, G.R.; Loui, R.P., A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, Artificial intelligence, 53, 125-157, (1992) · Zbl 1193.68238
[22] Vreeswijk, G., Abstract argumentation systems, Artificial intelligence, 90, 1-2, 225-279, (1997) · Zbl 1017.03513
[23] Elvang-Gransson, M.; Krause, P.; Fox, J., Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information, (), 114-121
[24] Pollock, J.L., How to reason defeasibly, Artificial intelligence, 57, 1-42, (1992) · Zbl 0763.68056
[25] Amgoud, L.; Cayrol, C., Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks, International journal of automated reasoning, 29, 2, 125-169, (2002) · Zbl 1056.68589
[26] C. Cayrol, On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment, in: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artifitial Intelligence, IJCAI’95, 1995, pp. 1443-1448.
[27] L. Amgoud, P. Besnard, A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2010), 2010, pp. 42-55.
[28] Thomason, R.H., Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals, (), 702-713
[29] Amgoud, L., A formal framework for handling conflicting desires, (), 552-563 · Zbl 1274.68448
[30] J. Hulstijn, L. van der Torre, Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework, in: A. Hunter, J. Lang (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Argument, Dialogue and Decision at the International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), Whistler, Canada, 2004.
[31] G.R. Simari, A.J. Garcia, M. Capobianco, Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Whistler BC, Canada, 2004, pp. 377-384.
[32] L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol, On the use of an ATMS for handling conflicting desires, in: D. Dubois, C.A. Welty, M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (KR2004), Whistler, Canada, June 2-5, 2004, pp. 194-201.
[33] Dastani, M.; Governatori, G.; Rotolo, A.; Song, I.; van der Torre, L., Contextual deliberation of cognitive agents in defeasible logic, (), 148-150
[34] M. Mbarki, J. Bentahar, B. Moulin, A. Moazin, Constraints-based negotiation using argumentation, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR’10), 2010.
[35] M. Mbarki, J. Bentahar, B. Moulin, Specification and complexity of strategic-based reasoning using argumentation, in: Third International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS’06), 2006, pp. 142-160.
[36] Cayrol, C.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks, (), 378-389 · Zbl 1122.68639
[37] Karacapilidis, N.; Papadias, D., Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the {\schermes} system, Information systems, 26, 4, 259-277, (2001) · Zbl 0990.68603
[38] Efstathiou, V.; Hunter, A., Algorithms for generating arguments and counter-arguments in propositional logic, International journal of approximate reasoning, 52, 6, 672-704, (2011) · Zbl 1252.68273
[39] Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; Marquis, P., Symmetric argumentation frameworks, (), 317-328 · Zbl 1122.68642
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.