Kido, Hiroyuki ![]() |
Preview |
PDF
- Accepted Post-Print Version
Download (372kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Argument-based reasoning offers promising interaction and computation mechanisms for multi-agent negotiation and deliberation. Arguments in this context are typically statements of beliefs or actions related to agents' subjective values, preferences and so on. Consequences of such arguments can and should be evaluated using various criteria, and therefore it is desirable that semantics supports these criteria as principles for accepting arguments. This article gives an instance of Dung's abstract argumentation framework to deal with Pareto optimality, i.e. a fundamental criterion for social welfare. We show that the instance allows Dung's acceptability semantics to interpret Pareto optimal arguments, without loss of generality. We discuss the prospects of justified Pareto optimal arguments and Pareto optimal extensions.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Date Type: | Publication |
Status: | Published |
Schools: | Computer Science & Informatics |
Publisher: | Oxford University Press |
ISSN: | 0955-792X |
Date of First Compliant Deposit: | 10 December 2019 |
Date of Acceptance: | 9 March 2015 |
Last Modified: | 16 Nov 2024 08:30 |
URI: | https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/127446 |
Actions (repository staff only)
![]() |
Edit Item |