Formal systems for persuasion dialogue

Knowledge Engineering Review

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 163-188

  Prakken, Henry ^a,b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTER SCIENCE; FORMAL LOGIC; GAME THEORY; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

INTELLIGENT TUTORING; PERSUASION DIALOGUE;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 33747617110     PISSN: 02698889     EISSN: 14698005     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0269888906000865     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Alexy, R, 1978, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als eine Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt am Main.
2. Amgoud, L and Cayrol, C, 2002, A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197-216.
3. Amgoud, L, Maudet, N and Parsons, S, 2000, Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MulliAgent Systems, pp. 31-38.
4. Angelelli, I, 1970, The techniques of disputation in the history of logic. Journal of Philosophy 67, 800-815.
5. Artikis, A, Sergot, M and Pitt, J, 2003, An executable specification of an argumentation protocol. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York, ACM Press, pp. 1-11.
6. Atkinson, K, Bench-Capon, T and McBurney, P, 2005, A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11, 153-171.
7. Barwise, J and Moss, L, 1996, Vicious Circles. No. 60 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
8. Bench-Capon, T, 1998, Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX: The Eleventh Conference. Nijmegen: Gerard Noodt Instituut, pp. 5-19,
9. Bench-Capon, T, Geldard, T and Leng, P, 2000, A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 233-254.
10. Brewka, G, 1994, Reasoning about priorities in default logic. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 247-260.
11. Brewka, G, 2001, Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation 11, 257-282.
12. Carlson, L, 1983, Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis. Dordrecht: Reidel.
13. Dung, P. 1995, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321-357.
14. Dunne, P and McBurney, P, 2003, Optimal utterances in dialogue protocols. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 608-615.
15. Fulda, J, 2000, The logic of "improper cross'". Artificial Intelligence and Law- 8, 337-341.
16. Geffner, H and Pearl, J, 1992, Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53, 209-244.
17. Giunchiglia, E, Lee, J, Lifschitz, V, McCain, N and Turner, H, 2004, Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153, 49-104.
18. Gordon, T, 1994, The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 239-292.
19. Gordon, T, 1995, The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
20. Hage, J, 1997, Reasoning With Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Law and Philosophy Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
21. Hage, J. Leenes, R and Lodder, A, 1994, Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 113-166.
22. Hamblin, C, 1970, Fallacies. London: Methucn.
23. Hamblin, C. 1971, Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37, 130-155.
24. Jakobovits, H, 2000, On the Theory of Argumentation Frameworks. Doctoral dissertation, Free University Brussels.
25. Jakobovits, H and Vermeir, D, 1999, Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: ACM Press, pp. 53-62.
26. Kraus, S, Sycara, K and Evenchik, A, 1998, Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104, 1-69.
27. Lodder, A. 1999, DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
28. Loui, R, 1998, Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14, 1-38.
29. Mackenzie, J. 1979, Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117-133.
30. Mackenzie, J. 1990, Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica 51, 567-583.
31. Maudet, N and Evrard, F. 1998, A generic framework for dialogue game implementation. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.
32. Maudet, N and Moore, D, 1999, Dialogue games for computer-supported collaborative argumentation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation for Learning Communities, Stanford.
33. McBurney, P and Parsons, S, 2002, Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13, 315-343.
34. McBurney, P. Parsons, S and Wooldridge, M, 2002, Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 402-409.
35. Moore, D. 1993, Dialogue Game Theory for Intelligent Tutoring Systems. PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University.
36. Morge, M, 2004, Computer supported collaborative argumentation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, pp. 69-72.
37. Parsons, S and McBurney, P. 2003, Argumentation-based communication between agents. In Communications in Multiagent Systems (Springer Lecture Notes in AI, 2650). Berlin: Springer, pp. 164-178.
38. Parsons, S, Sierra, C and Jennings, N, 1998, Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261-292.
39. Parsons, S. Wooldridge, M and Amgoud, L, 2002, An analysis of formal interagent dialogues. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 394-401.
40. Parsons, S, Wooldridge, M and Amgoud, L, 2003a, On the outcomes of formal interagent dialogues. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 616-623.
41. Parsons, S. Wooldridge, M and Amgoud, L, 2003b, Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 347-376.
42. Pollock, J, 1995, Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Prakken, H, 2000, On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In Proceedings of the Seventh European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (Springer Lecture Notes in AI, 1919). Berlin: Springer, pp. 224-238.
44. Prakken, H, 2001a, Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: ACM Press, pp. 119-128.
45. Prakken, H, 2001 b, Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187-219.
46. Prakken, H, 2005, Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 1009-1040.
47. Prakken, H and Sartor, G. 1997, Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25-75.
48. Prakken, H and Vreeswijk, G, 2002, Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Gabbay, D and Günthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 219-318.
49. Toulmin, S. 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Verheij, B, 1996, Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maastricht.
51. Walton, D, 1984, Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.
52. Walton, D, 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. Walton, D, 2003. Is there a burden of questioning? Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 1 43.
54. Walton, D and Krabbe, E, 1995, Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
55. Woods, J. and Walton, D, 1978, Arresting circles in formal dialogues. Journal of Philosophical Logic 7, 73-90.
56. Yuan, T, 2004, Human-Computer Debate, A Computational Dialectics Approach. PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University.