Agents deliberating over action proposals using the ProCLAIM model

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

Volumn 4696 LNAI, Issue , 2007, Pages 32-41

  Tolchinsky, Pancho ^a   Atkinson, Katie ^b   Mcburney, Peter ^b   Modgil, Sanjay ^c   Cortés, Ulises ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c IMPERIAL CANCER RESEARCH FUND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCIENCE; MODEL CHECKING; NETWORK PROTOCOLS; PROBLEM SOLVING; STRUCTURED PROGRAMMING;

AGENT DIALOGUE; CRITICAL QUESTIONS (CQ); STRUCTURED SETS;

SOFTWARE AGENTS;

EID: 36849094938     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-75254-7_4     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 192-207. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
2. ASPIC: Deliverable d2.1: Theoretical frameworks for argumentation (June 2004), http://www.argumentation.org/PublicDeliverables.htm
3. Atkinson, K.: What Should We Do?:Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK (2005)
4. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2), 157-206
5. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11, 153-171 (2005)
6. Aulinas, M., Tolchinsky, P., Turon, C., Poch, M., Cortés, U.: Is my spill environmentally safe? towards an integrated management of wastewater in a river basin using agents that can argue. In: WATERMATEX (May 2007)
7. Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H.: Choosing what to do by accruing arguments. In: Conference on Computational Models of Natural Argument. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144, pp. 247-258. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321-357 (1995)
9. López-Navidad, A., Caballero, F.: Extended criteria for organ acceptance: Strategies for achieving organ safety and for increasing organ pool. Clin Transplant, Blackwell Munksgaard 17, 308-324 (2003)
10. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue game protocols. In: Communication in Multiagent Systems, pp. 269-283 (2003)
11. Modgil, S., Tolchinsky, P., Cortés, U.: Towards formalising agent argumentation over the viability of human organs for transplantation. In: Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2005, pp. 928-938 (2005)
12. Nealon, J., Moreno, A.: The application of agent technology to healthcare. In: 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2002)
13. Tolchinsky, P., Cortés, U., Modgil, S., Caballero, F., López-Navidad, A.: Increasing human-organ transplant availability: Argumentation-based agent deliberation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(6), 30-37 (2006)
14. Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Cortés, U.: Argument schemes and critical questions for heterogeneous agents to argue over the viability of a human organ. In: AAAI 2006 Spring Symposium Series; Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare, pp. 105-111. AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (2006)
15. Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Cortés, U., Sànchez- Marrè, M.: CBR and Argument Schemes for Collaborative Decision Making. In: Conference on Computational Models of Natural Argument, vol. 144, pp. 247-258. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
16. Walton, D.N.: Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA (1996)