A human-computer debating system prototype and its dialogue strategies

International Journal of Intelligent Systems

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 133-156

  Yuan, Tangming ^a   Moore, David ^a   Grierson, Alec ^a  

^a LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; FORMAL LOGIC; HEURISTIC PROGRAMMING; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SOFTWARE PROTOTYPING;

COMPUTATIONAL DIALECTICS APPROACH; DIALECTICS; HUMAN-COMPUTER DEBATING SYSTEM; HUMAN-COMPUTER DIALOGUES;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 33846307806     PISSN: 08848173     EISSN: 1098111X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/int.20192     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Grasso F, Cawsey A, Jones R. Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: A case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. Int J Hum Comput Stud 2000; 53:1077-1115.
2. Reed C. Dialogue frames in agent communication. In: Proc Third Int Conf on Multi Agent Systems (ICMAS98). Paris: IEEE Press; 1998. pp 246-253.
3. Jennings NR. An agent-based approach for building complex software systems. Commun ACM 2001;44:35-41.
4. Bench-Capon TJM, Geldard T, Leng PH. A method for computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artif Intell Law 2000;8:233-254.
5. Walton D. The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese 2000;123:327-346.
6. Gordon T. Computational dialectics. In: Hoschka P, editor. Computers as assistants - A new generation of support systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1996. pp 186-203.
7. Reed C, Norman TJ. A roadmap of research in argument and computation. In: Reed C, Norman TJ, editors. Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003. pp 1-13.
8. Yuan T, Moore D, Grierson A. A conversational agents system as a test-bed to study philosophical model "DC." In: Proc IJCAI'2003 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Acapulco, Mexico; 2003. pp 45-50.
9. Yuan T, Moore D, Grierson A. Computational agents as a test-bed to study philosophical model "DE," a development of Mackenzie's "DC." Inform Logic 2003;23:263-284.
10. Mackenzie J. Begging the question in non-cumulative systems. J Philos Logic 1979; 8:117-133.
11. Yuan T, Moore D, Grierson A. A preliminary evaluation of the usability of a human computer debate dialogue model. In: HCI 2003, Design for Society, Bath, UK; 2003. pp 21-24.
12. Moore D. Dialogue game theory for intelligent tutoring systems. Ph.D. dissertation. Leeds, UK: Leeds Metropolitan University; 1993.
13. Hartley JR, Hintze D. Dialogue and learner modelling. In: Cheri SA, editor. Student model acquisition in a natural laboratory (NATLAB), GEC DELTA Project D-1016 Final Report. Brussels; 1990.
14. Bench-Capon TJM. Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In: Proc 11th Int Conf on Legal Knowledge Based Systems (JURIX). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Gerard Noodt Institute (GNI); 1998. pp 5-20.
15. Ravenscroft A, Pilkington R. Investigate by design: Dialogue models to support reasoning and conceptual change. Int J Artif Intell Educ 2000;11:237-298.
16. Freeman K, Farley A. A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 1996;4:163-197.
17. Toulmin S. The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1958.
18. Maudet N, Moore D. Dialogue games as dialogue models for interacting with, and via, computers. Inform Logic 2001;21:219-243.
19. Walton D. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates; 1996.
20. Krabbe E. Profile of dialogue. In: Gerbrandy J, Marx M, de Rijke M, Venema Y, editors. JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday, III. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 1999. pp 25-36.
21. Amgoud L, Maudet N. Strategical considerations for argumentative agents. In: Proc Ninth Int Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2002), Special Session on Argument, Dialogue, and Decision, Toulouse; 2002. pp 409-417.
22. Walton D. Dialectical relevance in persuasion dialogue. Inform Logic 1999;19:119-143.
23. Prakken H. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In: Proc JELIA'2000, the Seventh European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2000. pp 224-238.
24. Maudet N. Notes on relevance in dialectical systems. In: Proc ECSQARU'2001 Workshop Adventures in Argumentation, Toulouse; 2001. pp 36-42.
25. Amgoud L, Parsons S. Agent dialogue with conflicting preferences. In: Proc Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages (ATAL01), Seattle; 2001. pp 190-205.
26. Ravenscroft A, Matheson P. Developing and evaluating dialogue games for collaborative e-learning. J Comput Assist Learn 2002;18:93-101.
27. Moore D. A framework for using multimedia within argumentation systems. J Educ Multimedia Hypermedia 2000;9:83-98.
28. Yuan T. Human-computer debate, a computational dialectics approach. Ph.D. dissertation. Leeds, UK: Leeds Metropolitan University; 2004.
29. Walton D. The new dialectics: Conversational context of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1998.
30. Walton D. Are some modus ponens arguments deductively invalid? Inform Logic 2002; 22:19-46.
31. Reed C, Walton D. Argumentation schemes in argument-as-process and argument-as-product. In: Proc Conf Celebrating Informal Logic@25, Windsor, ON; 2003.
32. Grennan W. Informal logic: Issues and techniques. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press; 1997.
33. Walton D, Reed C. Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. In: Proc Fifth Int Conf on Argumentation (ISSA'2002), Amsterdam; 2002. pp 881-885.
34. Walton D, Reed C. Argumentation schemes and defeasible inference. In: Proc ECAI'2002 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Lyon; 2002. pp 45-55.
35. Amgoud L, Maudet N. Parsons S. Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proc Fourth Int Conf on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS'2000), Boston; 2000. pp 31-38.
36. Prakken H. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 2001;127:187-219.