An Argumentation-Based Interpreter for Golog Programs

This paper presents an argumentation-based interpreter for Golog programs. Traditional Golog interpreters are not designed to find the most preferred executions of a program from the perspective of an agent. Existing techniques developed to discover these executions are limited in terms of how the preferences of an agent can be expressed, and the variety of preference types that can be used to guide search for a solution. The presented work combines the use of argumentation to compare executions relative to a set of general comparison principles, and the theory behind best first search to reduce the cost of the search process. To the best of our knowledge this is the first work to integrate argumentation and the interpretation of Golog programs, and to use argumentation as a tool for best first search.

Michelle Blom, Adrian Pearce