55, CaSAPI: a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation

This paper ('CaSAPI: a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation', 2007, Dorian Gaertner, Francesca Toni) was the first to generalise ABA frameworks to allow multiple contraries.

Dispute Derivation Choices

Excellent description in 'Computing Arguments and Attacks in Assumption-Based Argumentation' (2007, Dorian Gaertner, Francesca Toni) of the five types of choices that need to be made in any implementation of the structured AB-dispute derivation algorithm, i.e.

- Choice of player (P or O);
- Choice of argument (in P or O);
- Selection function (a sentence from the chosen argument);
- Choice of (inference) rule (if chosen sentence is not assumption);
- Choice to ignore (if the opponent is selected and the selection function returns an assumption).

It is stated in this paper that the 'choice of argument' does not apply to AB-dispute derivations, since arguments aren't explicit in AB-dispute derivations. I don't think this is correct. If the opponent is selected in an AB-dispite derivation, the choice of 'S in Oi' is like a 'choice of argument' and the choice of 'sigma in S' is determined by the 'selection function'.

54, Argumentation Based on Classical Logic

Really well written paper ('Argumentation Based on Classical Logic', 2009, Philippe Besnard, Anthony Hunter). Loads of examples throughout. I like the concept of an argument being 'more conservative' than another (i.e. it is "less demanding on the support and less specific about the consequent") and that of a 'maximally conservative undercut'. The argument trees considered are "merely a representation of the argumentation" and (differently to 'abstract argument systems') do not display cases where the argumentation is infinite and unresolved as being so.

53, Hybrid Argumentation and its Properties

This paper ('Hybrid Argumentation and its Properties', 2008, Dorian Gaertner and Francesca Toni) presents a hybrid between abstract assumption-based argumentation. Good re-usable intro to the ABA framework in Section 2.

52, Argumentative Agent Deliberation, Roles and Context

This paper ('Argumentative Agent Deliberation, Roles and Context', 2002, Antonis Kakas and Pavlos Moraitis) presents an argumentation based framework based on 'Logic Programming without Negation as Failure' that makes use of three levels of rules (in the examples at least); 'object-level decision rules', 'role (or default context) priorities' and '(specific) context priorities'. Hints at using abduction for agents to make assumptions under incomplete knowledge but I didn't quite get it. Good deliberation examples making use of rules, priorities over rules and priorities over priorities over rules.

'Sentence'

"a sentence is a 'formula' in which every occurrence of a variabl (if any) is within the scope of a quantifier for that variable."

(Introduction to Logic Programming (page 11), by Chrstopher John Hogger)

maraIRAgents

Just finished the first version of the 'maraIRAgents' implementation (2 agents, 1+ resources each, 1 goal each, distributed fulfils plans).

Seems to run and not loop infinitely but identified a problem case, as follows:

-----

a1: goal(a1,g1), has(a1,r1), fulfils(r2,g1)
a2: goal(a2,g2), has(a2,r2), fulfils(r1,g1), fulfils(r2,g2)

-----

If a2 can communicate fulfils(r1,g1) to a1 then both agents end successfully but this doesn't happen.

Solution: Responding agent should only agree to a response if one of the two agents end up better off (similar to the condition for initiating a request). Otherwise it should refuse providing argument as such.