Abstract
In a normative environment, an agent’s actions are directed not only by its goals but also by the norms activated by its actions and those of other actors. The potential for conflict between agent goals and norms makes decision making challenging, in that it requires looking ahead to consider the longer-term consequences of which goal to satisfy or which norm to comply with in face of conflict. We therefore seek to determine the actions an agent should select at each point in time, taking account of its temporal goals, norms, and their conflicts. We propose a solution in which a normative planning problem is the basis for practical reasoning based on argumentation. Various types of conflict within goals, within norms, and between goals and norms are identified based on temporal properties of these entities. The properties of the best plan(s) with respect to goal achievement and norm compliance are mapped to arguments, followed by mapping their conflicts to attack between arguments, all of which are used to identify why a plan is justified.
- Alan S. Abrahams and Jean M. Bacon. 2002. The life and times of identified, situated, and conflicting norms. In International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science. 3--20.Google Scholar
- Leila Amgoud. 2003. A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (LNCS), Vol. 2711. Springer, 552--563.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Leila Amgoud and Claudette Cayrol. 2002. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics Artificial Intelligence 34, 1--3 (2002), 197--215.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leila Amgoud, Claudette Cayrol, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Livet. 2008a. On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 23, 10 (2008), 1062--1093.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leila Amgoud, Caroline Devred, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. 2008b. A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoning. In International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (LNCS), Vol. 5384. Springer, 37--56.Google Scholar
- Leila Amgoud and Henri Prade. 2009. Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence 173, 3--4 (2009), 413--436.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leila Amgoud and Srdjan Vesic. 2014. Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 55, 2 (2014), 585--606.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mukta S. Aphale, Timothy J. Norman, and Murat Sensoy. 2014. Goal directed policy conflict detection and prioritisation: An empirical evaluation. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS’14). IFAAMAS/ACM, 1489--1490.Google Scholar
- Katie Atkinson. 2005. What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. Ph.D. Dissertation.Google Scholar
- Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2007. Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems.Artificial Intelligence 171, 10--15 (2007), 855--874.Google Scholar
- Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2014. Taking the long view: Looking ahead in practical reasoning. In Computational Models of Argument (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Vol. 266. IOS Press, 109--120.Google Scholar
- Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2016. States, goals and values: Revisiting practical reasoning. Argument 8 Computation 7, 2--3 (2016), 135--154.Google Scholar
- Pietro Baroni and Massimiliano Giacomin. 2009. Semantics of abstract argument systems. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 25--44.Google Scholar
- Mairon Belchior, Jéssica Soares dos Santos, and Viviane Torres da Silva. 2018. Strategies for resolving normative conflict that depends on execution order of runtime events in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART’18). SciTePress, 216--223.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Alexandros Belesiotis, Michael Rovatsos, and Iyad Rahwan. 2010. Agreeing on plans through iterated disputes. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’10). IFAAMAS, 765--772.Google Scholar
- Trevor Bench-Capon. 2003. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Logic and Computation 13, 3 (2003), 429--448.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Trevor Bench-Capon. 2016. Value-based reasoning and norms. In European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’16) (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Vol. 285. IOS Press, 1664--1665.Google Scholar
- Trevor Bench-Capon, Henry Prakken, and Giovanni Sartor. 2009. Argumentation in legal reasoning. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 363--382.Google Scholar
- Avrim L. Blum and Merrick L. Furst. 1997. Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence 90, 1 (1997), 281--300.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Rafael H. Bordini, Michael Wooldridge, and Jomi Fred Hübner. 2007. Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason (Wiley Series in Agent Technology). John Wiley 8 Sons.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Gerhard Brewka and Thomas Eiter. 2000. Prioritizing default logic. In Intellectics and Computational Logic. 27--45.Google Scholar
- Jan Broersen, Mehdi Dastani, Joris Hulstijn, Zisheng Huang, and Leendert van der Torre. 2001. The BOID architecture: Conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS’01). ACM, 9--16.Google Scholar
- J. Broersen, M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn, and L. van der Torre. 2002. Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2, 3--4 (2002), 428--447.Google Scholar
- Maximiliano Celmo Budán, Mauro Javier Gómez Lucero, Carlos Iván Chesñevar, and Guillermo Ricardo Simari. 2015. Modeling time and valuation in structured argumentation frameworks. Information Sciences 290 (2015), 22--44.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Martin Caminada. 2006. On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In Logics in Artificial Intelligence (LNCS), Vol. 4160. Springer, 111--123.Google Scholar
- Martin Caminada and Leila Amgoud. 2007. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171, 5--6 (2007), 286--310.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Martin Caminada, Roman Kutlak, Nir Oren, and Wamberto Weber Vasconcelos. 2014a. Scrutable plan enactment via argumentation and natural language generation. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS’14). IFAAMAS/ACM, 1625--1626.Google Scholar
- Martin Caminada, Sanjay Modgil, and Nir Oren. 2014b. Preferences and unrestricted rebut. In Computational Models of Argument (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Vol. 266. IOS Press, 209--220.Google Scholar
- Laurence Cholvy and Frédéric Cuppens. 1995. Solving normative conflicts by merging roles. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’95). ACM, 201--209.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Frank S. de Boer, Koen V. Hindriks, Wiebe van der Hoek, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. 2007. A verification framework for agent programming with declarative goals. Journal of Applied Logic 5, 2 (2007), 277--302.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Marina De Vos, Tina Balke, and Ken Satoh. 2013. Combining event-and state-based norms. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS’13). IFAAMAS, 1157--1158.Google Scholar
- Jéssica Soares dos Santos, Jean de Oliveira Zahn, Eduardo Augusto Silvestre, Viviane Torres da Silva, and Wamberto Weber Vasconcelos. 2018. Detection and resolution of normative conflicts in multi-agent systems: A literature survey. In Proceedings of International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS’18). ACM, 1306--1309.Google Scholar
- Phan Minh Dung. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 2 (1995), 321--358.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Xiuyi Fan and Francesca Toni. 2015. On computing explanations in argumentation. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’15). AAAI Press, 1496--1502.Google Scholar
- Sergio Pajares Ferrando and Eva Onaindia. 2017. Defeasible-argumentation-based multi-agent planning. Information Sciences 411 (2017), 1--22.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Richard E. Fikes and Nils J. Nilsson. 1971. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’71). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 608--620.Google Scholar
- Dorian Gaertner and Francesca Toni. 2007. Preferences and assumption-based argumentation for conflict-free normative agents. In International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (LNCS), Vol. 4946. Springer, 94--113.Google Scholar
- Alejandro Javier García, Carlos Iván Chesñevar, Nicolás D. Rotstein, and Guillermo Ricardo Simari. 2013. Formalizing dialectical explanation support for argument-based reasoning in knowledge-based systems. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 8 (2013), 3233--3247.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Logic Programming, International Conference and Symposium. MIT Press, 1070--1080.Google Scholar
- Georgios K. Giannikis and Aspassia Daskalopulu. 2011. Normative conflicts in electronic contracts. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 10, 2 (2011), 247--267.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Akin Günay and Pinar Yolum. 2013. Constraint satisfaction as a tool for modeling and checking feasibility of multiagent commitments. Applied Intelligence 39, 3 (2013), 489--509.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Koen V. Hindriks, Wiebe van der Hoek, and M. Birna van Riemsdijk. 2009. Agent programming with temporally extended goals. In Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’09). IFAAMAS, 137--144.Google Scholar
- Koen V. Hindriks and M. Birna van Riemsdijk. 2007. Satisfying maintenance goals. In International Workshop on Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies (LNCS), Vol. 4897. Springer, 86--103.Google Scholar
- Joris Hulstijn and Leendert W. N. van der Torre. 2004. Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In Non Monotonic Reasoning (NMR’04). 212--218.Google Scholar
- Thomas C. King, Marina De Vos, Virginia Dignum, Catholijn M. Jonker, Tingting Li, Julian Padget, and M. Birna van Riemsdijk. 2017. Automated multi-level governance compliance checking. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 31, 6 (2017), 1--61.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Martin Kollingbaum. 2005. Norm-Governed Practical Reasoning Agents. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
- Martin J. Kollingbaum and Timothy J. Norman. 2003. NoA - A normative agent architecture. In Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’03). Morgan Kaufmann, 1465--1466.Google Scholar
- Carmen Lacave and Francisco Javier Díez. 2004. A review of explanation methods for heuristic expert systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 19, 2 (2004), 133--146.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Hengfei Li, Nir Oren, and Timothy J. Norman. 2011. Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA’11). Springer, 1--16.Google Scholar
- Tingting Li. 2014. Normative Conflict Detection and Resolution in Cooperating Institutions. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bath.Google Scholar
- Felipe Meneguzzi, Odinaldo Rodrigues, Nir Oren, Wamberto Weber Vasconcelos, and Michael Luck. 2015. BDI reasoning with normative considerations. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 43 (2015), 127--146.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sanjay Modgil. 2007. An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (LNCS), Vol. 4724. Springer, 648--659.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bernard Moulin, Hengameh Irandoust, Micheline Bélanger, and G. Desbordes. 2002. Explanation and argumentation capabilities: Towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artificial Intelligence Review 17, 3 (2002), 169--222.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nir Oren. 2013. Argument schemes for normative practical reasoning. In Theory and Application of Formal Argumentation (LNCS), Vol. 8306. Springer, 63--78.Google Scholar
- Nir Oren, Timothy J. Norman, and Alun D. Preece. 2007. Subjective logic and arguing with evidence. Artificial Intelligence 171, 10--15 (2007), 838--854.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nir Oren, Sofia Panagiotidi, Javier Vázquez-Salceda, Sanjay Modgil, Michael Luck, and Simon Miles. 2008. Towards a formalisation of electronic contracting environments. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems (COIN’08). (LNCS), Vol. 5428. Springer, 156--171.Google Scholar
- Nir Oren, Wamberto Vasconcelos, Felipe Meneguzzi, and Michael Luck. 2011. Acting on norm constrained plans. In Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), João Leite, Paolo Torroni, Thomas Ågotnes, Guido Boella, and Leon van der Torre (Eds.), Vol. 6814. Springer, 347--363.Google Scholar
- Natalia Criado Pacheco. 2012. Using Norms to Control Open Multi-Agent Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidad Politecnica de Valencia.Google Scholar
- Sofia Panagiotidi, Javier Vázquez-Salceda, and Frank Dignum. 2012. Reasoning over norm compliance via planning. In International Workshop on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems (LNCS), Vol. 7756. Springer, 35--52.Google Scholar
- J. Pitt, D. Busquets, and R. Riveret. 2013. Formal models of social processes: The pursuit of computational justice in self-organising multi-agent systems. In International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems. IEEE Computer Society, 269--270.Google Scholar
- Henry Prakken. 2006. Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In Computational Models of Argument (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Vol. 144. IOS Press, 311--322.Google Scholar
- Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. 1997. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 1 (1997), 25--75.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Iyad Rahwan and Leila Amgoud. 2006. An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (LNCS), Vol. 4766. Springer, 74--90.Google Scholar
- Anand S. Rao and Michael P. Georgeff. 1995. BDI agents: From theory to practice. In The 1st International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. 312--319.Google Scholar
- Raymond Reiter. 1991. The frame problem in situation the calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation. Academic Press Professional, 359--380.Google Scholar
- Zohreh Shams, Marina De Vos, Nir Oren, and Julian Padget. 2016. Normative practical reasoning via argumentation and dialogue. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16). IJCAI/AAAI Press, 1244--1250.Google Scholar
- Zohreh Shams, Marina De Vos, Julian Padget, and Wamberto Weber Vasconcelos. 2017. Practical reasoning with norms for autonomous software agents. Engineering Application of Artificial Intelligence 65 (2017), 388--399.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Richmond H. Thomason. 2000. Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’00). Morgan Kaufmann, 702--713.Google Scholar
- Alice Toniolo, Timothy J. Norman, and Katia P. Sycara. 2012. An empirical study of argumentation schemes for deliberative dialogue. In European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications), Vol. 242. IOS Press, 756--761.Google Scholar
- M. Birna van Riemsdijk, Mehdi Dastani, and Michael Winikoff. 2008. Goals in agent systems: A unifying framework. In Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’08). IFAAMAS, 713--720.Google Scholar
- Wamberto Weber Vasconcelos, Martin J. Kollingbaum, and Timothy J. Norman. 2009. Normative conflict resolution in multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS) 19, 2 (2009), 124--152.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Javier Vázquez-Salceda, Huib Aldewereld, and Frank Dignum. 2005. Norms in multiagent systems: From theory to practice. Computer Systems Science and Engineering 20, 4 (2005), 225--236.Google Scholar
- Douglas N. Walton. 1996. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Michael Wooldridge and Wiebe van der Hoek. 2005. On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract. Journal of Applied Logic 3--4 (2005), 396--420.Google Scholar
- Fabiola López y López, Michael Luck, and Mark d’Inverno. 2005. A normative framework for agent-based systems. In Normative Multi-Agent Systems (NMAS’05). 24--35.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Argumentation-Based Reasoning about Plans, Maintenance Goals, and Norms
Recommendations
On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation
ArgMAS'04: Proceedings of the First international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent SystemsThe notion of agent’s goals is crucial in negotiation dialogues. In fact, during a negotiation, each agent tries to make and to accept the offers which satisfy its own goals. Works on negotiation suppose that an agent has a set of fixed goals to pursue. ...
Preferences and assumption-based argumentation for conflict-free normative agents
ArgMAS'07: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Argumentation in multi-agent systemsArgumentation can serve as an effective computational tool and 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 ...
A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoning
AAMAS '08: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 1Practical 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-...






Comments