Normative Practical Reasoning via Argumentation and Dialogue

Authors: Zohreh Shams, Marina De Vos, Nir Oren, Julian Padget

IJCAI 2016 | Conference PDF | Archive PDF | Plain Text | LLM Run Details

Reproducibility Variable Result LLM Response
Research Type Theoretical In this paper we propose an argumentation-based approach to normative practical reasoning using a dialogue game to provide an intuitive overview of agent s reasoning. In achieving this aim, the following contributions are made: (i) we formalise a set of argument schemes and critical questions [Walton, 1996] aimed at checking plan justifiability with respect to goal satisfaction and norm compliance/violation; (ii) we offer a novel decision criterion that identifies the best plan(s) both in the presence and absence of preferences over goals and norms; and (iii) we investigate the properties of the best plan(s). These properties, together with Caminada s Socratic dialogu game [Caminada et al., 2014a], are used to generate an explanation for the justifiability of the best plan(s). ... In future work we will investigate temporal solutions to addressing goal-goal and goal-norm conflict, similar to how conflicts between norms are handled. We also intend to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of our explanations, determining how likely a human is to accept the recommendation of a system regarding the best plan(s).
Researcher Affiliation Academia a Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, UK {z.shams, m.d.vos, j.a.padget}@bath.ac.uk b Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen, UK n.oren@abdn.ac.uk
Pseudocode No The paper provides definitions and describes a theoretical framework with properties and examples, but it does not include any pseudocode or algorithm blocks.
Open Source Code No The paper does not mention providing open-source code for the described methodology. There are no links or statements about code availability.
Open Datasets No The paper is theoretical and uses worked examples (e.g., Example 6) rather than empirical datasets for training or evaluation. Therefore, there is no mention of publicly available datasets for training.
Dataset Splits No The paper is theoretical and does not describe empirical experiments involving data splits for training, validation, or testing.
Hardware Specification No The paper is theoretical and does not describe empirical experiments, thus no hardware specifications are mentioned.
Software Dependencies No The paper is theoretical and does not describe empirical experiments, therefore no specific software dependencies with version numbers are mentioned.
Experiment Setup No The paper is theoretical and does not describe empirical experiments, thus no experimental setup details like hyperparameters or system-level training settings are provided.