Dominant Decisions by Argumentation Agents
نویسندگان
چکیده
We introduce a special family of (assumption-based argumentation) frameworks for reasoning about the bene ts of decisions. These frameworks can be used for representing the knowledge of intelligent agents that can autonomously choose the \best" decisions, given subjective needs and preferences of decision-makers they \represent". We understand \best" decisions as dominant ones, giving more bene ts than any other decisions. Dominant decisions correspond, within the family of argumentation frameworks considered, to admissible arguments. We also propose the use of degrees of admissibility of arguments as a heuristic to assess subjectively the value of decisions and rank them from \best" (dominant) to \worst". We extend this method to provide notion of relative value of decisions where preferences over bene ts are taken into account. Finally, we show how our techniques can be successfully applied to the problem of selecting satellite images to monitor oil spills, to support electronic marketplaces for earth observation products.
منابع مشابه
Multi-Agent Decision Making with Assumption-based Argumentation
Much research has been devoted in recent years to argumentationbased decision making. However, less attention has been given to argumentation-based decision making amongst multiple agents. We present a multi-agent decision framework based on Assumptionbased Argumentation. In our model, agents have goals and decisions have attributes which satisfy goals. Our framework supports agents with differ...
متن کاملDialogical two-agent decision making with assumption-based argumentation
Much research has been devoted in recent years to argumentationbased decision making. However, less attention has been given to argumentation-based decision making amongst multiple agents. We present a multi-agent decision framework based on Assumptionbased Argumentation. In our model, agents have goals and decisions have attributes which satisfy goals. Our framework supports agents with differ...
متن کاملOn the Interplay between Games, Argumentation and Dialogues
Game theory, argumentation and dialogues all address problems concerning inter-agent interaction, but from different perspectives. In this paper, we contribute to the study of the interplay between these fields. In particular, we show that by mapping games in normal form into structured argumentation, computing dominant solutions and Nash equilibria is equivalent to computing admissible sets of...
متن کاملClassification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks
This paper aims at giving a classification of argumentation games agents play within a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agen...
متن کاملOn Strategic Argument Selection in Structured Argumentation Systems
This paper deals with strategical issues of arguing agents in a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agents. We give a thorough ...
متن کامل