Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships between the semantics and examine some essential properties concerning consistency and the coherence principle, which relates default negation and explicit negation. Most significantly, we place existing semantics put forward in the literature in our hierarchy and identify a particular argumentation semantics for which we prove equivalence to the paraconsistent well-founded semantics with explicit negation, WFSX @math . Finally, we present a general proof theory, based on dialogue trees, and show that it is sound and complete with respect to the argumentation semantics.
A number of authors @cite_23 @cite_18 @cite_15 @cite_27 @cite_37 @cite_45 @cite_14 @cite_20 work on argumentation for negotiating agents. Of these, the approaches of @cite_37 @cite_45 @cite_14 are based on logic programming. The advantage of the logic programming approach for arguing agents is the availability of goal-directed, top-down proof procedures. This is vital when implementing systems which need to react in real-time and therefore cannot afford to compute all justified arguments, as would be required when a bottom-up argumentation semantics would be used.
@cite_18 @cite_37 @cite_14 @cite_27 @cite_45 @cite_23 @cite_15 @cite_20
2095587681 1814404551 2206132849 2140044962
In a multi-agent environment, where self-motivated agents try to pursue their own goals, cooperation cannot be taken for granted. Cooperation must be planned for and achieved through communication and negotiation. We present a logical model of the mental states of the agents based on a representation of their beliefs, desires, intentions, and goals. We present argumentation as an iterative process emerging from exchanges among agents to persuade each other and bring about a change in intentions. We look at argumentation as a mechanism for achieving cooperation and agreements. Using categories identified from human multi-agent negotiation, we demonstrate how the logic can be used to specify argument formulation and evaluation. We also illustrate how the developed logic can be used to describe different types of agents. Furthermore, we present a general Automated Negotiation Agent which we implemented, based on the logical model. Using this system, a user can analyze and explore different methods to negotiate and argue in a noncooperative environment where no centralized mechanism for coordination exists. The development of negotiating agents in the framework of the Automated Negotiation Agent is illustrated with an example where the agents plan, act, and resolve conflicts via negotiation in a Blocks World environment. Agents engage in dialogues having as goals to make some arguments acceptable or unacceptable. To do so they may put forward arguments, adding them to the argumentation framework. Argumentation semantics can relate a change in the framework to the resulting extensions but it is not clear, given an argumentation framework and a desired acceptance state for a given set of arguments, which further arguments should be added in order to achieve those justification statuses. Our methodology, called conditional labelling, is based on argument labelling and assigns to each argument three propositional formulae. These formulae describe which arguments should be attacked by the agent in order to get a particular argument in, out, or undecided, respectively. Given a conditional labelling, the agents have a full knowledge about the consequences of the attacks they may raise on the acceptability of each argument without having to recompute the overall labelling of the framework for each possible set of attack they may raise. This paper studies an abduction problem in formal argumentation frameworks. Given an argument, an agent verifies whether the argument is justified or not in its argumentation framework. If the argument is not justified, the agent seeks conditions to explain the argument in its argumentation framework. We formulate such abductive reasoning in argumentation semantics and provide its computation in logic programming. Next we apply abduction in argumentation frameworks to reasoning by players in debate games. In debate games, two players have their own argumentation frameworks and each player builds claims to refute the opponent. A player may provide false or inaccurate arguments as a tactic to win the game. We show that abduction is used not only for seeking counter-claims but also for building dishonest claims in debate games. The ability to view extended logic programs as argumentation systems opens the way for the use of this language in formalizing communication among reasoning computing agents in a distributed framework. In this paper we define an argumentative and cooperative multi-agent framework, introducing credulous and sceptical conclusions. We also present an algorithm for inference and show how the agents can have more credulous or sceptical conclusions.