Skip to main content

Defeasible Planning through Multi-agent Argumentation

  • Conference paper
Combinations of Intelligent Methods and Applications

Part of the book series: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ((SIST,volume 8))

Abstract

The work reported here introduces DefPlanner, an argumentation-based partial-order planner where different agents that have a partial, and possibly contradictory, knowledge of the world articulate arguments for and against supporting preconditions of the actions to be included in a plan. In this paper, we introduce an extension to multiple agents of the defeasible argumentation formalism that has been proposed to address the task of planning in a single agent environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrett, A., Weld, D.S.: Partial-order planning: evaluating possible efficiency gains. Artificial Intelligence 67(1), 71–112 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Brenner, M., Nebel, B.: Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 19(3), 297–331 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fikes, R.E., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial intelligence 2(3-4), 189–208 (1971)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Garcıa, D.R., Garcıa, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible Reasoning and Partial Order Planning. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4932, p. 311. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning. Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hoffmann, J., Brafman, R.I.: Conformant planning via heuristic forward search: A new approach. Artif. Intell. 170(6-7), 507–541 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Penberthy, J.S., Weld, D.: UCPOP: A sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 103–114. Citeseer (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Prakken, H., Gordon, T., Walton, D., Bench-Capon, T., Bex, F.J., den Braak, S.W.v, Oostendorp, H.v., Prakken, H., Verheij, H.B., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Logical tools for modelling legal argument: a study of defeasible reasoning in law, Dordrecht, Boston (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1) (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 74–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Simari, G.R., García, A.J., Capobianco, M.: Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In: 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), pp. 377–384 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Stolzenburg, F., Garcia, A.J., Chesnevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Computing generalized specificity. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 13(1), 87 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Thimm, M.: Realizing argumentation in multi-agent systems using defeasible logic programming. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 175–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Thimm, M., Kern-Isberner, G.: A distributed argumentation framework using defeasible logic programming. In: International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), pp. 381–392 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Weld, D.S.: An introduction to least commitment planning. AI magazine 15(4), 27 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pajares, S., Onaindia, E. (2011). Defeasible Planning through Multi-agent Argumentation. In: Hatzilygeroudis, I., Prentzas, J. (eds) Combinations of Intelligent Methods and Applications. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 8. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19618-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19618-8_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19617-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19618-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics