Argumentation based resolution of conflicts between desires and normative goals

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 5384 LNAI, Issue , 2009, Pages 19-36

  Modgil, Sanjay ^a   Luck, Michael ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATIONS; DELETERIOUS EFFECTS; INDIVIDUAL AGENTS; MOTIVATIONAL FORCES;

AGENTS; LOGIC PROGRAMMING;

MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

EID: 61649123390     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6_2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Amgoud, L.: Using Preferences to Select Acceptable Arguments. In: Proc. 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 43-44 (1998)
2. Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan, L, Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3366, pp. 192-207. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
3. ASPIC Deliverable D2.1: Theoretical frameworks for argumentation. (June 2004), http://www.argumentation.org/PublicDeliverables.htm
4. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429-448 (2003)
5. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, E: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93, 63-101 (1997)
6. Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Goal Generation in the BOID Architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly Journal 2(3-4), 428-447 (2002)
7. Dastani, M., van der Torre, L.: Programming BOID-Plan Agents: Deliberating about Conflicts among Defeasible Mental Attitudes and Plans. In: Proc 3rd Int. Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 706-713 (2004)
8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321-357 (1995)
9. d'Inverno, M., Luck, M.: Understanding agent systems, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg
10. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Proc. Second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 883-890 (2003)
11. Lopez, F., Lopez, Y., Luck, M., D'Inverno, M.: A normative framework for agent-based systems. J. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 12(2-3), 227-250 (2006)
12. Modgil, S.: An Abstract Theory of Argumentation That Accommodates Defeasible Reasoning About Preferences. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS, vol. 4724, pp. 648-659. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
13. Modgil, S.: Reasoning About Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks. Technical Report, http://www.des.kel.ao.uk/staff/modgilsa/ ArguingAboutPreferenoes.pdf
14. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25-75 (1997)
15. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of logic and computation 15(6), 1009-1040 (2005)
16. Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: Conflict-free normative agents using assumption-basedargumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS, vol. 4946. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
17. Moses, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: Artificial Social Systems. Computers and AI 14(6), 533-562 (1995)
18. Vreeswijk, G.: An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In: Proc. 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 109-120 (2006)