Resource Boundedness and Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we extend the traditional Dung framework for argumentation with cardinality constraints over the set of warranted arguments. This results in a new definition for argumentation semantics wherein arguments within an extension are both in some sense consistent and compliant with the constraints imposed on the system. After discussing the theoretical aspects of such a resource-bounded argumentation framework we describe its utility via an application to a concrete application domain: the scheduling of demand responsive transport.
منابع مشابه
On a Logic for Coalitional Games with Priced-Resource Agents
Alternating-time Temporal Logic (ATL) and Coalition Logic (CL) are well-established logical formalisms particularly suitable to model games between dynamic coalitions of agents (like e.g. the system and the environment). Recently, the ATL formalism has been extended in order to take into account boundedness of the resources needed for a task to be performed. The resulting logic, called Resource...
متن کاملCollaborative Argumentation in Learning Resource Evaluation and Design
LORI (learning object review instrument) is an evaluation framework designed to support collaborative critique of multimedia learning resources. In this chapter, the interactions among reviewers using LORI are framed as a form of collaborative argumentation. Research on collaborative evaluation of learning resources has found that reviewers’ quality ratings tend to converge as a result of their...
متن کاملUniversity of Calgary Malicious Argumentation in Open Multi-agent Systems
Argumentation provides a powerful means to achieve complex, non-demonstrative rea soning within a multi-agent system. However, the advantages gained by this form of automated reasoning are not without consequence. When arguments are constructed out of formulae in an underlying formal logical language, decisions such as argument evalu ation involve deciding the consistency or logical entailmen...
متن کاملDung's Argumentation is Essentially Equivalent to Classical Propositional Logic with the Peirce-Quine Dagger
In this paper we show that some versions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frames are equivalent to classical propositional logic. In fact, Dung’s attack relation is none other than the generalised Peirce– Quine dagger connective of classical logic which can generate the other connectives ¬,∧,∨,→ of classical logic. After establishing the above correspondence we offer variations of the Dung argu...
متن کاملAn action-resource language for argumentation: the case of softwood lumber negotiation
We view a group problem as a resource allocation problem among involved parties, ana’ negotiation as the members’ act to protect, or better yet, to gain additional resources for themselves. Group members gather together to achieve a common goal. Yet, they are also stakeholders seeking to defend their own interest as well. As such, negotiation can be seen as an effort of all parties seeking to e...
متن کامل