Threat, 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 threats, rewards, appeals. The purpose of this paper is to provide a logical setting which encompasses the classical argumentation-based framework and handles the new types of arguments. More precisely, we give the logical definitions of these arguments and their weighting systems. These definitions take into account that negotiation dialogues involve not only agents’ beliefs (of various strengths), but also their goals (having maybe different priorities), as well as the beliefs on the goals of other agents. In other words, from the different belief and goal bases maintained by agents, all the possible threats, rewards, explanations, appeals which are associated with them can be generated.