An approach to improve argumentation-based epistemic planning with contextual preferences.

JUAN CARLOS LIONEL TEZE; LLUIS GODO; GERARDO SIMARI

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPROXIMATE REASONING

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC

Lugar: Amsterdam; Año: 2022

0888-613X

Current approaches to argumentation-based planning represent an interestingproposal where defeasible argumentation is used as a practical mechanism suit-able for reasoning with potentially contradictory information in dynamic en-vironments.In many real-world planning scenarios, the development of for-malisms allowing explicit preference specification over pieces of knowledge turnsout to be an essential task—however, despite its importance, existing plan-ning systems are not provided with the possibility of dynamically changingthese preferences when a plan is being constructed.This paper presents anargumentation-based approach to deal with the handling of preferences when aplan is formulated; in particular, we propose using conditional expressions toselect and change priorities regarding information upon which plans are con-structed. Our aim is not to improve the efficiency of current planning systems,but to enhance the resulting plan itself by introducing an approach capable ofrepresenting and handling multiple preferences over defeasible knowledge. Thisapproach will contribute to the strengthening of existing argumentation-basedepistemic planning systems, providing a useful tool that the user could exploit.Finally, we also present a running-time analysis and several complexity resultsassociated with our approach.