An argument at ion-based approach for practical reasoning

We build on recent work on argumentation frameworks for generating desires and plans. We provide a rich instantiation of Dung's abstract argumentation framework for (i) generating consistent desires; and (ii) generating consistent plans for achieving these desires. This is done through three distinct argumentation frameworks: one (now standard) for arguing about beliefs, one for arguing about what desires the agent should adopt, and one for arguing about what plans to intend in order to achieve the agent's desires. More specifically, we refine and extend existing approaches by providing means for comparing arguments based on decision-theoretic notions (cf. utility). Thus, the worth of desires and the cost of resources are integrated into the argumentation frameworks and taken into account when comparing arguments.