Research in Multi-Agent Planning (MAP) has traditionally been
concerned with the design of coordination mechanisms such that the resulting
joint plan meets the global goals of a problem. In contrast to most MAP
techniques, in this paper we present a novel argumentation-based approach
for multiple agents that plan cooperatively while having different capabilities,
knowledge about the world and even contradictory information. Our aim is to
enhance the role of argumentation as a means to attain a collective behaviour
when devising a joint plan. Since agents’ decisions are influenced by the
other agents’ plans, the use of mechanisms becomes relevant for persuading
an agent to adopt a certain course of action, or negotiating on the use of scarce
resources. Through a dialectical process, agents will discuss the different
choices put forward by the others thus reaching a commonly agreed solution
plan.
Keywords: Multi-agent Systems, Argumentation, Planning, Multi-agent
Planning, Coordination, Argument schemes, Dialectical trees, Intelligent
Agents, Computational Argumentation, Argumentation-based Negotiation.
