Argument Schemes for Reasoning About the Actions of Others

نویسندگان

  • Katie Atkinson
  • Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon
چکیده

In practical reasoning, it is important to take into consideration what other agents will do, since this will often influence the effect of actions performed by the agent concerned. In previous treatments, the actions of others must either be assumed, or argued for using a similar form of practical reasoning. Such arguments, however, will also depend on assumptions about the beliefs, values and preferences of the other agents, and so are difficult to justify. In this paper we capture, in the form of argumentation schemes, reasoning about what others will do, which depends not on assuming particular actions, but through consideration of the expected utility (based on the promotion and demotion of values) of particular actions and alternatives. Such arguments depend only on the values and preferences of the agent concerned, and do not require assumptions about the beliefs, values and preferences of the other relevant agents. We illustrate the approach with a running example based on Prisoner’s Dilemma.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Argument Schemes for Normative Practical Reasoning

This paper describes a framework for practical reasoning in the presence of norms. We describe a formal normative model constructed using Action-based Alternating Transition Systems. This model is able to represent goals; obligations and prohibitions and their violation; and permissions, which are used to derogate the former. Inspired by Atkinson’s scheme for practical reasoning, we utilise arg...

متن کامل

Practical Reasoning Using Values Giving Meaning to Values

Each person holds numerous values that represent what is believed to be important. As a result, our values influence our behavior and play a role in practical reasoning. Various argumentation approaches use values to justify actions, but they assume a function that determines what values a state or action promotes and demotes. However, this is often open for debate, since values are abstract an...

متن کامل

Dempster-Shafer Argument Schemes

Dempster-Shafer theory, which can be regarded as a generalisation of probability theory, is a widely used formalism for reasoning with uncertain information. The application of the theory hinges on the use of a rule for combining evidence from different sources. A number of different combination rules have been applied, each of which makes certain assumptions about the evidence. Here we describ...

متن کامل

Teleological argumentation to and from motives

This paper uses tools from argumentation and artificial intelligence to build a system to analyse reasoning from a motive to an action and reasoning from circumstantial evidence of actions to a motive. The tools include argument mapping, argumentation schemes, inference to the best explanation and a hybrid method of combining argument and explanation. Several examples of use of relevant motive ...

متن کامل

AVER: Argument visualization for evidential reasoning1

This paper reports on the ongoing development of a collaborative, webbased application for argument visualization named AVER (Argument Visualization for Evidential Reasoning). It is targeted at police officers who may use it to express their reasoning about a case based on evidence. AVER provides an interface which supports the construction and visualization of argument graphs and handles more ...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2016