Notes taken from 'Conflict-free normative agents using assumption-based argumentation' (2007), by Dorian Gaertner and Francesca Toni
"... We (map) a form of normative BDI agents onto assumption-based argumentation. By way of this mapping we equip our agents with the capability of resolving conflicts amongst norms, belifs, desires and intentions. This conflict resolution is achieved by using the agent's preferences, represented in a variety of formats..."
1, Introduction
Normative agents that are governed by social norms may see conflicts arise amongst their individual desires, or beliefs, or intentions. These conflicts may be resolved by rendering information (such as norms, beliefs, desires and intentions) defeasible and by enforcing preferences. In turn, argumentation has proved to be a useful technique for reasoning with defeasible information and preferences when conflicts may arise.
In this paper we adopt a model for normative agents, whereby agents hold beliefs, desires and intentions, as in a conventional BDI model, but these mental attitudes are seen as contexts and the relationship amongst them are given by means of bridge rules...
2, BDI+N Agents: Preliminaries
(Background (BDI+N agents), Norm Representation in BDI+N Agents, Example)
3, Conflict Avoidance
(Background (Assumption-based argumentation framework), Naive Translation into Assumption-Based Argumentation, Avoiding Conflicts using Assumption-Based Argumentation)
4, Conflict Resolution using Preferences
(Preferences as a Total Ordering, Preferences as a Partial Ordering, Defining Dynamic Preferences via Meta-rules)
5, Conclusions
In this paper we have proposed to use assumption-based argumentation to solve conflicts that a normative agent can encounter, arising from applying conflicting norms but also due to conflicting beliefs, desires and intentions. We have employed qualitative preferences over an agent's beliefs, desires and intentions and over the norms it is subjected to in order to resolve conflicts...
No comments:
Post a Comment