Determining preferences through argumentation

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3673 LNAI, Issue , 2005, Pages 98-109

  Doutre, Sylvie ^a   Bench Capon, Trevor ^a   Dunne, Paul E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCIENCE; LEARNING SYSTEMS; SET THEORY;

ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; COHERENT POSITION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 33646125866     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11558590_11     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Math. and Artificial Intelligence, 34:197-215, 2002.
2. K. Atkinson, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Justifying practical reasoning. ECAI Workshop CMNA'04, 2004.
3. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic, 22(3):231-245, 2002.
4. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429-448, 2003.
5. T. J. M. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2): 97-143, 2003.
6. C. Cayrol, S. Doutre, M.-Ch. Lagasquie-Schiex, and J. Mengin. "Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proc. NMR'2002, pages 408-415, 2002.
7. C. Cayrol, S. Doutre, and J. Mengin. On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):377-403, 2003.
8. S. Doutre, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and P. E. Dunne. Explaining preferences with argument positions. In Proc. IJCAI-05 (to appear), 2005.
9. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321-357, 1995.
10. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence, 141:187-203, 2002.
11. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence, 149:221-250, 2003.
12. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Complexity in value-based argument systems. In Proc. 9th JELIA, volume 3229 of LNAI, pages 360-371. Springer-Verlag, 2004.
13. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Identifying audience preferences in legal and social domains. In Proc. DEXA'04, volume 3180 of LNCS, pages 518-527. Springer-Verlag, 2004.
14. A. Hunter. Making argumentation more believable. In Proc. of the 19th American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'2004), pages 269-274. MIT Press, 2004.
15. H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proc. ICAIL-99, pages 53-62, 1999.
16. C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Univ. of Notre-Dame Press, 1969.
17. J. R. Searle. Rationality in Action. MIT Press, 2001.
18. G. Vreeswijk and H. Prakken. Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In Proc. 7th JELIA, volume 1919 of LNAI, pages 224-238. Springer-Verlag, 2000.
19. D. N. Walton. Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.