Abstract
Agent planning has attracted much research attention in recent years. In argumentation, agent planning has been studied by several researchers with significant contributions made in modelling agent goals, desires and actions. However, there is little work that connects argumentation semantics, plan construction and temporal information in a unified framework. In this work, we use a version of the classic blocks world planning problem as our case study and demonstrate how Assumption-based Argumentation can be used to tackle planning problems with explicit time step information. In our approach, the process of plan construction is equated to constructing acceptable arguments (with respect to an argumentation semantics) with temporal aspects taken into consideration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
\(\tau \notin \mathcal {L}\) represents “true” and stands for the empty body of rules.
- 2.
We use rule and assumption schemata to simplify our notations. Specifically, in each of the rules, assumptions and contraries, we have \(X,X'\in \mathtt {R}, X \ne X', L,L',L'' \in \mathtt {L}, L \ne L', L \ne L'', L' \ne L''\) and \(T,T^-\) in some time step sequence. In Rule 5, we also enforce that \(X < X'\).
- 3.
Here, m, n, nA and o are short-hands for move, noOp, notAt and occupied, respectively.
- 4.
We abuse the notation \(\varDelta \). Here and hereinafter, \(\varDelta \) is used to represent both a set of assumptions in the instantiated framework \(F_I\) and a plan containing a set of actions with syntactically identical names in the corresponding planning problem \(\varPi \).
References
Amgoud, L., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoning. In Proceedings of AAMAS, Richland, SC, pp. 429–436. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2008)
Amgoud, L., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Generating possible intentions with constrained argumentation systems. IJAR 52(9), 1363–1391 (2011)
Čyras, K., Fan, X., Schulz, C., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation: disputes, explanations, preferences. J. Appl. Logics - IfCoLoG J. Logics Appl. 4(8), 2407–2456 (2017)
García, D.R., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible reasoning and partial order planning. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4932, pp. 311–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77684-0_21
Nau, D., Ghallab, M., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning: Theory & Practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2004)
Pollock, J.: Defeasible planning. In: Proceedings of AAAI Workshop, Integrating Planning, Scheduling and Execution in Dynamic and Uncertain Environments (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fan, X. (2018). A Temporal Planning Example with Assumption-Based Argumentation. In: Miller, T., Oren, N., Sakurai, Y., Noda, I., Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Cao Son, T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11224. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03097-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03098-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)