Agents that argue and explain classifications

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 187-209

  Amgoud, Leila ^a   Serrurier, Mathieu ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PAUL SABATIER   (France)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Classification

Indexed keywords

EID: 39149084385     PISSN: 13872532     EISSN: 15737454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10458-007-9025-6     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Amgoud, L. (2003). A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In 7th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (pp. 552-563). LNAI 2711.
2. Amgoud, L., Belabbes, S., & Prade, H. (2005). Towards a formal framework for the search of a consensus between autonomous agents. In 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 537-543).
3. Amgoud L. and Cayrol C. (2002). Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning 29(2): 125-169
4. Amgoud L. and Cayrol C. (2002). A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34: 197-216
5. Amgoud, L., & Kaci, S. (2005). An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases: The prioritized case. In 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty.
6. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., & Parsons, S. (2000). Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In 4th International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, ICMAS 2000. Boston, USA: IEEE Press.
7. Amgoud, L., & Parsons, S. (2002). An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases. In 8th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 27-37). LNCS 2424.
8. Amgoud, L., & Prade, H. (2006). Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 219-224). AAAI Press.
9. Amgoud, L., Serrurier, M. (2007). Arguing and explaining classifications. In O. Sheory & M. Huhns (Eds.), International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007) (pp. 979-985). ACM Press.
10. Black, E., & Hunter, A. (2007). A generative inquiry dialogue system. In 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents systems.
11. Bonet, B., & Geffner, H. (1996). Arguing for decisions: A qualitative model of decision making. In 12th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 98-105).
12. Breiman O.S. (1984). Friedman. Classification and decision trees. Wadsworth Press.
13. Caminada M. and Amgoud L. (2007). On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence Journal 171(5-6): 286-310
14. Dung P.M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal 77: 321-357
15. Dunne P. and Capon T.B. (2002). Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence journal 141(1-2): 187-203
16. Elvang-Gransson, M., Krause, P., & Fox, J. (1993). Acceptability of arguments as 'logical uncertainty' In Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (pp. 85-90).
17. Fox, J., & Parsons, S. (1997). On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, Stanford.
18. Gómez, S. A., & Chesñevar, C. I. (2003). Integrating defeasible argumentation with fuzzy art neural networks for pattern classification. In Proceedings of the ECML'03, Dubrovnik, September 2003.
19. Gomez, S. A., & Chesnevar, C. I. (2004). A hybrid approach to pattern classification using neural networks and defeasible argumentation. In 17th International FLAIRS 2004 Conference (pp. 393-398). AAAI Press.
20. Hulstijn, J., & van der Torre, L. (2004). Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In J. Delgrande, & T. Schaub (Eds.), 10th Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning.
21. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P. (2006). Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents systems (pp. 384-391).
22. Kraus S., Sycara K. and Evenchik A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: A logical model and implementation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 104(1-2): 1-69
23. Mitchell T. (1982). Generalization as search. Artificial intelligence 18: 203-226
24. Mozina, M., Zabkar, J., & Bratko, I. (2006). Argument based rule learning. In 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 504-508).
25. Muggleton S. (1995). Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing 13: 245-286
26. Parsons, S., & Jennings, N. R. (1996). Negotiation through argumentation-a preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (pp. 267-274).
27. Prakken H. (2006). Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163-188
28. Quinlan J.R. (1987). Simplifying decision trees. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27: 221-234
29. Quinlan J.R. (1990). Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning 5: 239-266
30. Quinlan, J. R. (1993). A decision science perspective on decision trees. In Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kauffman.
31. Rahwan, I., & Amgoud, L. (2006). An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
32. Simari G.R. and Loui R.P. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 53: 125-157
33. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Series in Logic and Language. Albany: State University of New York Press.
34. Zabkar, J., Mozina, M., Videcnik, J., & Bratko, I. (2006). Argument based machine learning in a medical domain. In I. Press (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (pp. 59-70).