Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system

Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS

Volumn 1, Issue , 2008, Pages 430-437

  Black, Elizabeth ^a   Hunter, Anthony ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Cooperation; Dialogue; Enthymemes; Inquiry

Indexed keywords

AUTONOMOUS AGENTS; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

ARGUMENTATION; COOPERATION; DIALOGUE; ENTHYMEMES; INQUIRY;

SPEECH PROCESSING;

EID: 84899929379     PISSN: 15488403     EISSN: 15582914     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34:197-216, 2002.
2. L. Amgoud and N. Hameurlain. An argumentation-based approach for dialogue move selection. In 3rd Int. Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pages 111-125, 2006.
3. P. Besnard and A. Hunter. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 128:203-235, 2001.
4. E. Black and A. Hunter. A generative inquiry dialogue system. In 6th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 1010-1017, 2007.
5. P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. Dialectical proof procedures for assumption-based admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 170:114-159, 2006.
6. T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and N. Leone. Semantics and complexity of abduction from default theories. Artificial Intelligence, 90:177-223, 1997.
7. A. Garcia and G. Simari. Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4(1):95-138, 2004.
8. A. Hunter. Real arguments are approximate arguments. In 22nd Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-07), pages 66-71, 2007.
9. A. Kakas, N. Maudet, and P. Moraitis. Modular representation of agent interaction rules through argumentation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2):189-206, 2005.
10. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 32(1-4):125-169, 2001.
11. S. Parsons, P. McBurney, E. Sklar, and M. Wooldridge. On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues. In 6th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Mutli-Agent Systems, pages 1002-1009, 2007.
12. S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud. Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. of Logic and Comp., 13(3):347-376, 2003.
13. H. Prakken. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. of Logic and Comp., 15(6):1009-1040, 2005.
14. I. Rahwan, L. Sonenburg, N. R. Jennings, and P. McBurney. Stratum: A methodology for designing heuristic agent negotiation strategies. Int. J. of Applied Artificial Intelligence, 21(6):489-527, 2007.
15. F. Sadri, F. Toni, and P. Torroni. Dialogues for negotiation: Agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In 8th Int. Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, pages 69-84, 2001.
16. D. Sperber and D. Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwells, 1995.
17. D. N. Walton. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
18. D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, 1995.