Audiences in argumentation frameworks

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 171, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 42-71

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation frameworks; Dialogue; Practical reasoning

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; INTELLIGENT AGENTS;

ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; DIALOGUE; PRACTICAL REASONING;

FORMAL LOGIC;

EID: 33846107899     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2006.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Amgoud L., and Cayrol C. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics Artificial Intelligence 34 (2002) 197-215
2. K. Atkinson, What should we do?: Computational representation of persuasive argument in practical reasoning, PhD thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, December 2005
3. Atkinson K., and Bench-Capon T. Addressing moral problems through practical reasoning. In: Goble L., and Meyer J.-J.Ch. (Eds). Deontic Logic and Artificial Normative Systems (Proc. DEON'06). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence vol. 4048 (2006), Springer-Verlag, Berlin 8-23
4. Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T., and McBurney P. Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. Proc. 10th ICAIL (2005), ACM Press, New York 35-44
5. K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, P. McBurney, Multi-agent argumentation for edemocracy, in: M.P. Gleizes, G. Kaminka, A. Nowé, S. Ossowski, K. Tuyls, K. Verbeeck (Eds.), Proc. 3rd EUMAS, 2005, pp. 35-46
6. K. Atkinson, T.J.M. Bench-Capon, P. McBurney, Justifying practical reasoning, in: F. Grasso, C. Reed, G. Carenini (Eds.), Proc. of the 4th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), ECAI 2004, 2004, pp. 87-90
7. Bench-Capon T., Atkinson K., and Chorley A. Persuasion and value in legal argument. Journal of Logic and Computation 15 (2005) 1075-1097
8. Bench-Capon T.J.M. Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic 22 3 (2002) 231-245
9. Bench-Capon T.J.M. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13 3 (2003) 429-448
10. Bondarenko A., Dung P.M., Kowalski R.A., and Toni F. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93 (1997) 63-101
11. C. Cayrol, S. Doutre, M.-Ch. Lagasquie-Schiex, J. Mengin, "Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks, in: Proc. NMR'2002, 2002, pp. 408-415
12. Cayrol C., Doutre S., and Mengin J. Dialectical proof theories for the credulous preferred semantics of argumentation frameworks. 6th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU-2001). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence vol. 2143 (2001), Springer-Verlag, Berlin 668-679
13. Cayrol C., Doutre S., and Mengin J. On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13 3 (2003) 377-403
14. Christie G. The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument (2000), Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
15. Coleman J. Risks and Wrongs (1992), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
16. Cook S.A., and Reckhow R.A. The relative complexity of propositional proof systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic 44 1 (1979) 36-50
17. Dimopoulos Y., and Torres A. Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science 170 (1996) 209-244
18. S. Doutre, T.J.M. Bench-Capon, P.E. Dunne, Explaining preferences with argument positions, in: Proc. IJCAI-05, 2005, pp. 1560-1561
19. Dung P.M. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77 (1995) 321-357
20. Dung P.M., Kowalski R.A., and Toni F. Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170 (2006) 114-159
21. Dunne P.E., and Bench-Capon T.J.M. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence 141 (2002) 187-203
22. Dunne P.E., and Bench-Capon T.J.M. Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149 (2003) 221-250
23. Dunne P.E., and Bench-Capon T.J.M. Complexity in value-based argument systems. Proc. 9th JELIA. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence vol. 3229 (2004), Springer-Verlag, Berlin 360-371
24. Dunne P.E., and Bench-Capon T.J.M. Identifying audience preferences in legal and social domains. Proc. DEXA'04. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 3180 (2004), Springer-Verlag, Berlin 518-527
25. Hunter A. Towards higher impact argumentation. Proc. of the 19th American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'2004) (2004), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 275-280
26. H. Jakobovits, D. Vermeir, Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks, in: Proc. ICAIL-99, 1999, pp. 53-62
27. National Forensic League. Tournament handbook (2006). http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/NationalTournament/ntman.pdf
28. Perelman C., and Olbrechts-Tyteca L. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (1969), Univ. of Notre-Dame Press
29. Searle J.R. Rationality in Action (2001), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
30. Vreeswijk G., and Prakken H. Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. Proceedings of JELIA'2000, The 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence vol. 1919 (2000), Springer-Verlag, Berlin 224-238
31. Walton D.N. Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates