Recent advances in computational models of natural argument

International Journal of Intelligent Systems

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-15

  Reed, Chris ^a   Grasso, Floriana ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; EDUCATION; ELECTRONIC COMMERCE; FORMAL LOGIC; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MEDICINE;

AI TECHNIQUES; COMPUTATIONAL MODELS; REAL WORLD ARGUMENTS; THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 33846308887     PISSN: 08848173     EISSN: 1098111X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/int.20187     Document Type: Article

References (145)

1. Rich E, Knight K. Artificial intelligence, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw Hill; 1991.
2. Reiter R. A logic for default reasoning. Artif Intell 1980;13:81-132.
3. McDermott DV, Doyle J. Nonmonotonic logic I. Artif Intell 1980;13:41-72.
4. Reiter R. On closed world data bases. In: Gallaire H, Minker J, editors. Logic and databases. New York: Plenum Press; 1978. pp 55-76.
5. McCarthy J, Hayes P. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer B, Michie D, editors. Machine intelligence, vol 4, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1969. pp 463-502.
6. Clark K. Negation as failure. In: Gallaire H, Minker J, editors. Logic and databases. New York: Plenum Press; 1978. pp 293-322.
7. McCarthy J. Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge. Artif Intell 1986;28:89-118.
8. Lifschitz V. Pointwise circumscription. In: Ginsberg M, editor. Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 1987. pp 179-193.
9. Shanahan M. Solving the frame problem. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1997.
10. Lin F, Shoham Y. Argument systems: A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proc First Int Conf on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR'89). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 1989. pp 245-255.
11. Krause P, Ambler S, Elvang-Gøransson M, Fox J. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Comput Intell 1995;11:113-131.
12. Dung PM. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 1995;77:321-357.
13. Pollock JL. Defeasible reasoning. Cogn Sci 1987;11:481-518.
14. Pollock JL. A theory of defeasible reasoning. Int J Intell Syst 1991;6:33-54.
15. Pollock JL. Justification and defeat. Artif Intell 1994;67:377-407.
16. Vreeswijk GAW. Abstract argumentation systems. Artif Intell 1997;90:225-279.
17. Kowlaski RA, Toni F. Abstract argumentation. Artif Intell Law 1996;4:275-296.
18. Bondarenko A, Dung PM, Kowalski RA, Toni F. An abstract argumentation theoretic framework for default reasoning. Artif Intell 1997;93:63-101.
19. Chesñevar CI, Maguitman AG. Logical models of argument. ACM Comput Surv 2000;32:337-383.
20. Prakken H, Vreeswijk G. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay D, Guenthner F, editors. Handbook of philosophical logic, vol 4, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2002. pp 218-319.
21. Parsons SD, Jennings NR. Negotiation through argumentation: A preliminary report. In: Proc 2nd Int Conf on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS'96) Kyoto; 1996. pp 267-274.
22. Amgoud L, Cayrol C. A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann Math Artif Intell 2002;34:197-216.
23. Kakas A, Maudet N, Moraitis P. Layered strategies and protocols for argumentation-based agent interaction. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 64-77.
24. Sycara K. Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theor Decis 1990;28:203-242.
25. Ramchurn SD, Jennings NR, Sierra C. Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: A rhetorical approach. In: Working Notes of the 3rd Int Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA2003), Acapulco, Mexico; 2003. pp 9-18.
26. Bentahar J, Moulin B, Chaib-draa B. Specifying and implementing a persuasion dialogue game using commitments and arguments. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 130-148.
27. Parsons SD, Sierra C, Jennings N. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J Logic Comput 1998;8:261-292.
28. Jennings NR, Parsons S, Noriega P, Sierra C. On argument-based negotiation. In: Proc Int Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, Boston; 1998. Available at: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~nrj/download-files/iwmas.ps.
29. Maudet N. Negotiating dialogue games. J Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 2003;7:229-233.
30. McBurney P, van Eijk RM, Parsons S, Amgoud L. A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. J Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 2003;7:235-273.
31. Rahwan I, Sonenberg L, McBurney P. Bargaining and argument-based negotiation: Some preliminary comparisons. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 176-191.
32. Karuntillake NC, Jennings NR. Is it worth arguing? In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 234-250.
33. Walton DN, Krabbe ECW. Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; 1995.
34. Walton DN. The new dialectic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1998.
35. Dignum FPM, Dunin-Keplicz B, Verbrugge R. Dialogue in team formation. In: Dignum F, Greaves M, editors. Issues in agent communication. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2001. pp 264-280.
36. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P. A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 149-161.
37. McBurney P, Hitchcock D, Parsons S. The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. Int J Intell Syst 2007;22:95-132.
38. Reed CA. Dialogue frames in agent communication. In: Proc 3rd Int Conf on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS98). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press; 1998. pp 246-253.
39. McBurney P, Parsons S, Wooldridge M. Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In: Castelfranchi C, Johnson WL, editors. In: Proc First Int Joint Conf on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS'02). New York: ACM Press; 2002. pp 402-409.
40. Norman T, Carbogim D, Krabbe ECW, Walton D. Argument and multi-agent systems. In: Reed C, Norman TJ, editors. Argumentation machines. Norwell, MA: Kluwer; 2003. pp 15-54.
41. McBurney P, Parsons S. Dialogue games in multi-agent systems. Informal Logic 2002;22:257-274.
42. Wooldridge M. Verifiable semantics for agent communication languages. In: Demazeau Y, editor. In: Proc Third Int Conf on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 98). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press; 1998. pp 349-356.
43. Hamblin CL. Fallacies. London: Methuen; 1970.
44. Krabbe ECW. Formal systems of dialogue rules. Synthese 1985;63:295-328.
45. Mackenzie JD. Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica 1990;49:567-583.
46. Singh MP. A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Proc IJCAI'99 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2000. pp 31-45.
47. Yolum P, Singh MP. Commitment machines. In: Proc 8th Int Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages (ATAL'01). Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2002. pp 245-257.
48. Venkatraman M, Singh MP. Verifying compliance with commitment protocols: Enabling open web-based multi-agent systems. J Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 1999;2:217-236.
49. Bentahar J, Moulin B, Meyer JJCh, Chaib-draa B. A modal semantics for an argumentation-based pragmatics for agent communication. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 44-63.
50. Maudet N, Chaib-draa B. Commitment-based and dialogue-game based protocols - New trends in agent communication language. Knowl Eng 2002;17:157-179.
51. Parsons S, Wooldridge M, Amgoud L. Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J Logic Comput 2003;13:347-376.
52. Wells S, Reed C. Formal dialectic specification. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 31-43.
53. Capobianco M, Chesñevar CI, Simari GR. An argument-based framework to model an agent's beliefs in a dynamic environment. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 95-110.
54. Malheiro W, Oliveira E. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. In: Progress in Artificial Intelligence Knowledge Extraction, Multi-agent Systems, Logic Programming, and Constraint Solving (EPIA 2001). Berlin: Springer; 2001. pp 205-218.
55. Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C, Revising beliefs through arguments: Bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors, Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004), Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 78-94.
56. Vreeswijk GAW. Argumentation in Bayesian belief networks. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 111-129.
57. Das S. Logic of probabilistic arguments. In: Working Notes of the Second Int Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2002), Lyon, France: 2002. pp 9-18.
58. Gratton C. Counterexamples and degrees of support. In: Working Notes of the Second Int Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2002), Lyon, France; 2002. pp 49-54.
59. Saha S. Sen S. A Bayes net approach to argumentation based negotiation. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 208-222.
60. Loui R. Defeat among arguments. Comput Intell 1987;3:100-106.
61. Farley AM, Freeman K. Burden of proof in a computational model of argumentation. In: Eemeren FH, Van Grootendorst R, Blair JA, Willard CA, editors. In: Proc Third ISSA Conf on Argumentation, vol III, Sicsat, Amsterdam; 1995. pp 410-422.
62. Verheij B. DefLog; On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. J Logic Comput 2003;13:319-346.
63. Skalak DB. Rissland EL. Argument moves in a rule-guided domain. In: Proc Int Conf on AI and Law (ICAIL'91), Oxford, UK; 1991. pp 1-11.
64. Walton DN. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park. PA: Pennsylvania State University Press; 2002.
65. Bench-Capon T, Freeman JB, Hohmann H, Prakken H. Computational models, argumentation theories and legal practice. In: Reed C, Norman TJ. editors. Argumentation machines. Norwell, MA: Kluwer; 2003. pp 85-120.
66. Carbogim DV, Robertson D, Lee J. Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. Knowl Eng Rev 2000;15:119-149.
67. Birnbaum L. Argument molecules: A functional representation of argument structure. In: Proc Second Nat Conf on AI (AAAI'82), Pittsburgh, PA; 1982. pp 63-65.
68. Alvarado SJ, Dyer MG, Flowers M. Argument representation for editorial text. Knowl Based Syst 1990;3:87-107.
69. Sillince JAA, Minors RH. Argumentation, self-inconsistency and multi-dimensional argument strength. Commun Cogn 1992;25:325-338.
70. Fox J, Das S. Safe and sound: Artificial intelligence in hazardous applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2000.
71. Gurr C. Argument representation for dependable computer-based systems. Informal Logic 2002;22:293-321.
72. O'Keefe DJ. Two concepts of argument. J Am Forensic Assoc 1977;13:121-128.
73. Mackenzie JD. The dialectics of logic. Logique Analyse 1981;24:159-177.
74. Woods J, Walton DN. Arresting circles in formal dialogues. J Philos Logic 1978;7:73-90.
75. Brewka G. Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. J Logic Comput 2001;11:257-282.
76. Gordon TF. Pleadings game: An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995.
77. Toulmin SE. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1958.
78. Prakken H. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 2001;127:187-219.
79. Gordon TF, Karacapilidis NI. The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proc Int Conf on AI and LAW (ICAIL'97), Melbourne, Australia; 1997. pp 10-18.
80. Matwin S, Szpakowicz S, Koperczak Z, Kersten GE, Michalowski W. Negoplan; An expert system shell for negotiation support. IEEE Expert 1989;4:50-62.
81. Girle R, Hitchcock D, McBurney P, Verheij B. Decision support for practical reasoning. In: Reed C, Norman TJ, editors. Argumentation machines. Norwell, MA: Kluwer; 2003, pp 55-84.
82. Prakken H, Vreeswijk G. Encoding schemes for a discourse support system for legal argument. In: Working Notes of the Second Int Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2002), Lyon, France; 2002. pp 31-40.
83. Gordon TF, Richter G. Discourse support systems for deliberative democracy. In: Traunmüller R, Lenk K, editors. eGovernment: State of the art and perspectives (EGOV). Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2002. pp 248-255.
84. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P. PARMENIDES: Facilitating democratic debate. In: Traunmüller R, editor. Electronic Government (EGOV 2004), Zaragoza, Spain; 2004. pp 313-316.
85. Lodder AR. A simple model to structure the information of parties in online ADR. In: Proc Seventh Int Conf on AI and Law, St. Louis, MO; 2001. pp 233-234.
86. Conklin J, Bergman ML. gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans Office Inform Syst 1988;6:303-331.
87. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Pol Sci 1973;4:155-169.
88. Horn RE. Using argumentation analysis to examine history and status of a major debate in artificial intelligence and philosophy. In: Proc Fourth Conf of the International Society for the Study of Argument (ISSA'98) SicSat, Amsterdam; 1998, pp 375-381.
89. Brna P, Cox R, Good J. Learning to think and communicate with diagrams: 14 questions to consider. Artif Intell Rev 2001;15:115-134.
90. Kirschner PA, Buckingham Shum SJ, Carr CS. Visualizing argumentation. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2003.
91. Van Gelder TJ. How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. In: Kennedy G, Keppell M, McNaught C, Petrovic T, editors. Proc 18th Conf of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Melbourne; 2001. pp 539-548.
92. Reed C, Rowe GWA. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 2004;14:961-980.
93. Verheij B. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artif Intell 2003;150:291-324.
94. Li G, Uren V, Motta E, Buckingham Shum S, Domingue J. ClaiMaker: Weaving a semantic web of research papers. In: Proc First Int Semantic Web Conf, Sardinia; 2002. pp 436-441.
95. Buckingham Shum SJ, Uren V, Li G, Sereno B, Mancini C. Modeling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures: Representation and interaction design issues. Int J Intell Syst 2007;22:17-47.
96. Mann WC. Dialogue macrogame theory. In: Proc SIGdial Workshop, Philadelphia; 2002. pp 129-141. See also www-rcf.esc.edu/~billmann/dialogue.
97. Krabbe ECW. Profiles 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, vol III. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 1999. pp 25-36.
98. Pilkington RM, Hartley JR, Hintze D, Moore DJ. Learning to argue and arguing to learn: An interface for computer-based dialogue games. J Artif Intell Educ 1992;3:275-295.
99. Suthers D, Jones D. An architecture for intelligent collaborative educational systems. In: AI-Ed 97, the Eighth World Conf on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Kobe, Japan; 1997. pp 55-62.
100. Mackenzie JD. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J Philos Logic 1979;8:117-133.
101. Hobbs DJ, Moore DJ. Computational uses of philosophical dialogue theories. Informal Logic 1996;18:131-163.
102. Yuan T, Moore D, Grierson A. A human-computer debating system prototype and its dialogue strategies. Int J Intell Syst 2007;22:133-156.
103. Carofiglio V, de Rosis F. Exploiting uncertainty and incomplete knowledge in deceptive argumentation. In: Proc Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Language Argument. In: Proc Int Conf on Computational Science (ICCS'2001) Part 1, (LNCS vol 2073). Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2001. pp 1019-1028.
104. Sklar E, Parsons S, Davies M. When is it okay to lie? A simple model of contradiction in agent-based dialogues. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 251-262.
105. Crosswhite J, Fox J, Reed C, Scaltsas T, Stumpf S. Computational models of rhetorical argument. In: Reed C, Norman TJ, editors. Argumentation machines. Norwell, MA: Kluwer; 2003. pp 175-210.
106. Aleven V, Ashley KD. An instructional environment for practising argumentation skills. In: Proc 12th National Conf on AI (AAAI'94), Seattle, WA; 1994. pp 485-492.
107. Cavilla-Sforza V, Moore JD, Suthers DD. Helping students articulate, support and criticize scientific explanations. In: Proc World Conf on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Virginia; 1993. pp 113-120.
108. Baker M, Quignard M, Lund K. Designing a computer-supported collaborative learning situation for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. In: Proc Fifth Int Conf of the International Society for the Study of Argument (ISSA'02) SicSat, Amsterdam; 2002. pp 55-62.
109. Fiedler A, Horacek H. Argumentation within deductive reasoning. Int J Intell Syst 2007;22:49-70.
110. Grasso F. Exciting avocados and dull pears: Combining behavioural and argumentative theory for producing effective advice. In: Proc 20th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (COG-SCI'98), Wisconsin; 1998. pp 436-441.
111. 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.
112. Perelman Ch, Olbrechts-Tyteca L. The new rhetoric. Notre Dame. IN: Notre Dame Press; 1969.
113. Reiter E, Robertson R, Osman L. Lessons from a failure: Generating tailored smoking cessation letters. Artif Intell 2003;144:41-58.
114. Kamp H. Enthymemes. TM Series Report TM-4168 SDC. Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corporation; 1969.
115. Hitchcock D. Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic 1985;7:83-97.
116. Reichman R. Getting computers to talk like you and me. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1987.
117. Cohen R. Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse. Comput Ling 1987;13:11-24.
118. Maybury MT. Communicative acts for generating natural language arguments. In: Proc Nat Conf on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'93), Washington, DC; 1993. pp 357-364.
119. Reed CA. The role of saliency in generating natural language arguments. In: Proc 16th Int Joint Conf on AI (IJCAI'99). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 1999. pp 876-881.
120. Elhadad M. Using argumentation in text generation. J Pragmatics 1995;24:189-220.
121. Anscombre JC, Ducrot O. L'argumentation dans la langue. Liège: Pierre Mardaga; 1983.
122. Gilbert MA, Grasso F, Groarke L, Gurr C, Gerlofs JM. The persuasion machine. In: Reed C, Norman TJ, editors. Argumentation machines. Norwell, MA: Kluwer; 2003. pp 121-174.
123. Zukerman I, McConachy R. Korb KB, Pickett D. Exploratory interaction with a Bayesian argumentation system. In: Dean T, editor. In: Proc 19th Int Joint Conf on AI (IJCAI'99). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 1999. pp 1274-1279.
124. Carenini G. GEA: A complete, modular system for generating evaluative arguments. In: Proc Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Language Argument. In: Proc Int Conf on Computational Science (ICCS'2001) Part 1, (LNCS vol 2073). Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2001. pp 959-968.
125. Green N. A study of argumentation in a causal probabilistic humanistic domain: Genetic counseling. Int J Intell Syst 2007;22:71-93.
126. Carofiglio V. Modelling argumentation with belief networks. In: Working Notes of the 4th Int Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), Valencia, Spain; 2004. pp 22-24.
127. King P, Tester J. The landscape of persuasive technologies. Commun ACM 1999;42:31-38.
128. Grasso F. Towards computational rhetoric. Informal Logic 2002;22:195-230.
129. Bench-Capon TJM. Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic 2002;22:231-246.
130. Bench-Capon T. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 2003;13:429-448.
131. Gilbert MA, Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1997.
132. de Rosis F, Grasso F. Affective natural language generation. In: Paiva A, editor. Affective interactions. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2000. pp 204-218.
133. Gilbert MA, Reed C. E-motion: Moving towards the utilization of artificial emotion. Informal Logic 2002;22:275-292.
134. Guerini M, Stock O, Zancanaro M. Persuasion models for intelligent interfaces. In: Working Notes of the Third Int Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA2003), Acapulco, Mexico; 2003. pp 25-30.
135. Carofiglio V, de Rosis F. In favour of cognitive models of emotions. Proc Workshop on Mind-Minding Agents at AISB'05, Hatfield, UK, April 2005. pp 171-176.
136. Eemeren FH, van Grootendorst R. Argumentation communication and fallacies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1992.
137. Snoeck Henkemanns AF. State of the art: The structure of argumentation. Argumentation 2000;14:447-473.
138. Freeman JB. Dialectics and the macrostructure of argument. Berlin: Foris; 1991.
139. Yanal R. Dependent and independent reasons. Informal Logic 1991;13:137-144.
140. Gilbert MA. Getting good value: Facts, values and goals in computational linguistics. In: Proc Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Language Argument. In: Proc Int Conf on Computational Science (ICCS'2001) Part 1, (LNCS vol 2073). Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2001. pp 989-998
141. Amgoud L, Kaci S. On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 192-207.
142. Walton DN. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1996.
143. Bex F, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton D. Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argument schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 2003;11:125-165.
144. Reed C, Walton D. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C, editors. Argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2004). Berlin: Springer; 2005. pp 19-30.
145. Verheij B. Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: Towards a methodology for the investigation of argumentation schemes. In: van Eemeren FH, Blair JA, Willard CA, Snoeck Henkemans F, editors. In: Proc Fifth Conf of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2002) Sic Sat, Amsterdam; 2003. pp 1033-1037.