The hedgehog and the fox: An argumentation-based decision support system

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

Volumn 4946 LNAI, Issue , 2008, Pages 114-131

  Morge, Maxime ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PISA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; CONCRETE DATA STRUCTURES; EXPECTED UTILITY; INFORMATION PROVIDING; LOGIC LANGUAGES; MISSING INFORMATION; PRACTICAL REASONING; TREE-LIKE STRUCTURES;

DATA STRUCTURES; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; DECISION THEORY;

MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

EID: 70249130467     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-78915-4-8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 219-318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)
2. Berlin, S.I.: The Hedgehog and the Fox. Simon & Schuster (1953)
3. Stournaras, T. (ed.): Concrete scenarios identification & simple use cases. Delivrable document D1.1 ARGUGRID (2007)
4. Clemen, R.T.: Making Hard Decisions. Duxbury. Press (1996)
5. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Maths and AI 34(1-3), 197-215 (2002)
6. Ralf Schweimeier, M.S.: Notions of attack and justified arguments for extended logic programs. In: van Harmelen, F. (ed.) Proc. of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2002), Amsterdam, pp. 536-540. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)
7. Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225-279 (1997)
8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321-357 (1995)
9. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 642-674 (2007)
10. Vreeswijk, G., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 239-253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
11. Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law Journal Special Issue on Logical Models of Argumentation 4(3-4), 275-296 (1996)
12. Gartner, D., Toni, F.: CaSAPI: a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation. In: Simari, G., Torroni, P. (eds.) Proc. Workshop on Argumentation for Non-monotonic Reasoning, pp. 80-95 (2007)
13. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114-159 (2006)
14. Fox, J., Parsons, S.: On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values. In: Doyle, J., Thomason, R.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Working Papers of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, Standford, pp. 55-63 (1997)
15. Oliver, R.M., Smith, J.Q. (eds.): Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1988)
16. Raz, J. (ed.): Practical Reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1978)
17. 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)
18. Thomason, R.H.: Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In: Proc. of the seventh International Confenrence on Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 702-713 (2000)
19. Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In: Proc. of the 9h International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), pp. 212-218 (2004)
20. Rahwan, I., Amgoud, L.: An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In: Proc. of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 347-354. ACM Press, New York (2006)
21. Simari, G.R., García, A.J., C., M.: Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Whistler BC, Canada, pp. 377-384 (2004)
22. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentative-based decision-making for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 883-890. ACM Press, New York (2003)
23. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, special issue on Knowledge, Rationality and Action 152(2), 157-206 (2006)
24. Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., Tsoukias, A.: Arguing over actions that involve multiple criteria: A critical review. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
25. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Comparing decisions in an argumentation-based setting. In: Proc. of the 11th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2006), Session on Argumentation, Dialogue, and Decision Making, Lake District, UK, pp. 426-432 (2006)
26. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In: Proc. of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2006), Boston, Boston, pp. 16-20 (2006)
27. Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H.: Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In: Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 247-258. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)