Scenario argument structure vs individual claim defeasibility: What is more important for validity assessment?

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

Volumn 5113 LNAI, Issue , 2008, Pages 282-296

  Galitsky, Boris A ^a   Kuznetsov, Sergei O ^b  

^a Knowledge Trail Inc   (United States)

^b NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGENTS; FLOW INTERACTIONS; GRAPH THEORY; LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

ARGUMENT STRUCTURING; COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; CONCEPT LEARNING; CONCEPT-BASED; CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURES; CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS; DEFEASIBILITY; DIRECTED GRAPHS; INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES; KNOWLEDGE VISUALIZATION; LEARNING TECHNIQUES; MULTI AGENTS; MULTI-AGENT INTERACTIONS; TWO SOURCES; VALIDITY ASSESSMENT;

MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

EID: 48949084143     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-70596-3_20     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337-383 (2000)
2. Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A.: An Argumentative Approach for Assessing Natural Language Usage based on the Web Corpus. In: Proc. Of the ECAI 2004 Conf., Valencia, Spain, pp. 581-585 (2004)
3. Fum, D., Missiera, F.D., Stoccob, A.: The cognitive modeling of human behavior: Why a model is (sometimes) better than 10,000 words. Cognitive Systems Research 8 - 3, 135-142 (2007)
4. Galitsky, B., Kuznetsov, S., Samokhin, M.: Analyzing Conflicts with Concept-Based Learning. In: ICCS 2005, Kassel, Germany (2005)
5. Galitsky, B., Kovalerchuk, B., Kuznetsov, S.O.: Learning Common Outcomes of Communicative Actions Represented by Labeled Graphs. In: ICCS 2007, pp. 387-400 (2007)
6. Galitsky, B.: Reasoning about mental attitudes of complaining customers. Knowledge-Based Systems Elsevier 19(7), 592-615 (2006)
7. Galitsky, B.: Merging deductive and inductive reasoning for processing textual descriptions of inter-human conflicts. J. Intelligent Info Systems 27(1), 21-48 (2006)
8. Galitsky, B., Gonzalez M.P., Chesnevar C.: Processing Customer Complaints Scenarios through Argument-Based Decision Making. Decision-Support Systems (in the press, 2008)
9. Ganter, B., Kuznetsov, S.: Pattern Structures and Their Projections. In: Delugach, H.S., Stumme, G. (eds.) ICCS 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2120, pp. 129-142. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
10. García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible Logic Programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95-138 (2004)
11. Kuznetsov, S.O.: Learning of Simple Conceptual Graphs from Positive and Negative Examples. In: Żytkow, J.M., Rauch, J. (eds.) PKDD 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1704, pp. 384-391. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
12. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. In Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18(4), 343-375 (2003)
13. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. of Applied Non-classical logics 7, 25-75 (1997)
14. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Phil. Logic, pp. 219-318. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)
15. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Bologna (2002)
16. Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI agents: From Theory to Practice. Technical note 56 (1995)
17. Sham, S.B.: There's Nothing Like a Good Argument. IEEE Software, Requirements Engineering column, 21-23 (September-October 2007)
18. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming and n-person games. Artificial intelligence 77, 321-357 (1995)