In this paper, we introduce a formalism for single-agent decision making that is based on Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks. The formalism can be used to justify a choice, which is based on the current situation the agent is involved. Taking advantage of the inference mechanism of the argumentation formalism, it is possible to consider preference relations and conflicts among the available alternatives for that reasoning. With this formalization, given a particular set of evidence, the justified conclusions supported by warranted arguments will be used by the agent's decision rules to determine which alternatives will be selected. We also present an algorithm that implements a choice function based on our formalization. Finally, we complete our presentation by introducing formal results that relate the proposed framework with approaches of classical decision theory.

Argumentation is a human-like reasoning mechanism contributing to the formalization of commonsense reasoning. In the last decade, several argument-based formalisms have emerged, with application in many areas, such as legal reasoning, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems; many are based on Dung’s seminal work characterizing Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AF). Recent research in the area has led to Temporal Argumentation Frameworks (TAF) that extend Dung’s by considering the temporal availability of arguments. In this work we introduce a novel framework, called Extended Temporal Argumentation Framework (E-TAF), extending TAF with the capability of modeling availability of attacks among arguments, which allows for instance to model reliability of arguments varying over time. We show how E-TAF can be enriched by considering Structured Abstract Argumentation, adding compositional elements to the abstract arguments involved based on a simplified version of the recently introduced Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks.