Reasoning about priorities in default logic
AAAI'94 Proceedings of the twelfth national conference on Artificial intelligence (vol. 2)
An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning
Artificial Intelligence
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents
AAMAS '03 Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
AAMAS '04 Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2
Semantics of declarative goals in agent programming
Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
An argumentation based approach for practical reasoning
AAMAS '06 Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
An argumentation based approach for practical reasoning
AAMAS '06 Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
Value Based Argumentation in Hierarchical Argumentation Frameworks
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Preferences of agents in defeasible logic
AI'05 Proceedings of the 18th Australian Joint conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence
On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation
ArgMAS'04 Proceedings of the First international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
| Hi-index | 0.01 |
A key challenge for agent architectures and programming paradigms is to account for defeasible reasoning over mental attitudes and to provide associated conflict resolution mechanisms. A growing body of work is looking to address these challenges by proposing argumentation based approaches to agent defeasible and practical reasoning. This work conforms to Dung's seminal argumentation semantics. In this paper we review our previous work in which we extend Dung's semantics to allow for inclusion of arguments that express preferences between other arguments. In this way we account for the fact that preference information required to resolve conflicts is itself defeasible and may be conflicting. We then propose the extended semantics as a semantics for agent defeasible and practical reasoning, and substantiate this claim by showing how our semantics can characterise, and indeed provide a framework for extending, existing approaches to agent reasoning over beliefs, goals, and actions.