Justificatory and Explanatory Argumentation for Committing Agents
نویسندگان
چکیده
In the interaction between agents we can have an explicative discourse, when communicating preferences or intentions, and a normative discourse, when considering normative knowledge. For justifying their actions our agents are endowed with a Justification and Explanation Logic (JEL), capable to cover both the justification for their commitments and explanations why they had to act in that way, due to the current situation in the environment. Social commitments are used to formalise justificatory and explanatory patterns. The combination of explanation, justification, and commitments provides flexibility for defining several types of argumentative agents.
منابع مشابه
Generating Discourse-Based Explanations
Humans and artificial agents need to be able to explain themselves to one another. They need to be able to present their perspectives and assess the views of others. This paper describes an approach to explanation aware reasoning, using underlying structures of natural discourse and argumentation theory. By positioning argumentation, explanation, and defeasibility concepts as first-class ontolo...
متن کاملAbstract Argumentation and Explanation
Argumentation and Explanation Christian Strasser and Dunja Šešelja {christian.strasser, dunja.seselja}@UGent.be Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University Abstract. In this paper Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (cp. [6]) is extended with explanatory capabilities. Further, we investigate bipolar argumentation systems (cp. [4]), incorporate values (cp. [3]) and generaliz...
متن کاملThreat, reward and explanatory arguments: generation and evaluation
Current logic-based handling of arguments has mainly focused on explanation-oriented purposes in presence of inconsistency, so only one type of argument has been considered. Several argumentation frameworks have then been proposed for generating and evaluating such arguments. However, recent works on argumentation-based negotiation have emphasized different other types of arguments such as thre...
متن کاملLaw as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument
Many lawyers lack a basic understanding of the structure and process of legal argumentation. Their limited understanding, which often leads to less than effective advocacy, stems from legal education's failure to make the structure and process of legal argument explicit and systematic. One approach to this problem is to explore the intrinsic relationship of law to rhetoric. Because law and rhet...
متن کاملHandling threats, rewards, and explanatory arguments in a unified setting
Current logic-based handling of arguments has mainly focused on explanation or justification-oriented purposes in presence of inconsistency. So only one type of argument has been considered, and several argumentation frameworks have then been proposed for generating and evaluating such arguments. However, recent works on argumentationbased negotiation have emphasized different other types of ar...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- CoRR
دوره abs/1304.3860 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2012