Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics

Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science)

Volumn 1919, Issue , 2000, Pages 239-253

  Vreeswijk, Gerard A W ^a   Prakken, Henry ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DECISION MAKING;

AUTOMATED NEGOTIATIONS; DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTATION; DIALECTICAL PROOF THEORY; INTELLIGENT TUTORING; PREFERRED SEMANTICS; PROOF THEORY; STABLE SEMANTICS;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 84943167871     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. V.Aleven and K.D.Ashley.Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills.In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 170-179, New York, 1997.ACM Press.
2. L.Amgoud, N.Maudet, and S.Parsons.Modelling dialogues using argumentation.In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, Boston, MA, 2000.
3. T.J.M.Bench-Capon.Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game.In Legal Knowledge-Based Systems.JURIX: The Eleventh Conference, pages 5-19, Nijmegen, 1998.Gerard Noodt Instituut.
4. A.Bondarenko, P.M.Dung, R.A.Kowalski, and F.Toni.An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning.Artificial Intelligence, 93(1-2):63-101, 1997.
5. G.Brewka.A reconstruction of Rescher's theory of formal disputation based on default logic.In A.Cohn, editor, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 366-370.John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1994.
6. G.Brewka.Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus.Journal of Logic and Computation, 2000.To appear.
7. Y.Dimopoulos, B.Nebel, and F.Toni.Preferred arguments are harder to compute than stable extensions.In T.Dean, editor, Proc.of the 16th Int.Joint Conf.on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI99), pages 36-41.Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.
8. P.M.Dung.Logic programming as dialog game.Unpublished paper, Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 1994.
9. P.M.Dung.On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games.Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-357, 1995.
10. T.F.Gordon.The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice.Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995.Revised edition of the author's Ph.D.Thesis (same title), Technische Hochschule, Darmstadt, 1993.
11. T.F.Gordon, N.Karaçapilidis, H.Voss, and A.Zauke.Computer-mediated cooperative spatial planning.In H.Timmermans, editor, Decision Support Systems in Urban Planning, pages 299-309.E & FN SPON Publishers, London, 1997.
12. F.Grasso, A.Cawsey, and R.Jones.Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: A case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2000.To appear.
13. J.C.Hage, R.E.Leenes, and A.R.Lodder.Hard cases: A procedural approach.Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:113-166, 1994.
14. H.Jakobovits and D.Vermeir.Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks.In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 53-62, New York, 1999.ACM Press.
15. A.C.Kakas and F.Toni.Computing argumentation in logic programming.Journal of Logic and Computation, 9:515-562, 1999.
16. S.Kraus, K.Sycara, and A.Evenchik.Reaching agreements through argumentation: A logical model and implementation.Artificial Intelligence, 104:1-69, 1998.
17. A.R.Lodder.DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation.Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999.
18. R.P.Loui.Process and policy: Resource-bounded nondemonstrative reasoning.Computational Intelligence, 14(1):1-38, 1998.
19. N.Maudet and D.Moore.Dialogue games for computer-supported collaborative argumentation.In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation for Learning Communities, Stanford, 1999.
20. S.Parsons, C.Sierra, and N.R.Jennings.Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing.Journal of Logic and Computation, 8:261-292, 1998.
21. J.L.Pollock.Cognitive Carpentry.A Blueprint for How to Build a Person.MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
22. H.Prakken.On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments.2000.These proceedings.
23. H.Prakken.Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation.Synthese, 2000.To appear in special issue on New Perspectives in Dialogical Logics.
24. H.Prakken and G.Sartor.Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities.Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25-75, 1997.
25. H.Prakken and G.A.W.Vreeswijk.Logical systems for defeasible argumentation.To appear in D.Gabbay (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edition.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht etc., 2000.
26. G.R.Simari, C.I.Chesñevar, and A.J.Garcia.The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation.In Proceedings of the XIV International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, 1994.
27. D.Suthers, A.Weiner, J.Connelly, and M.Paolucci.Belvedere: engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues.In Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 266-273, 1995.
28. H.B.Verheij.Automated argument assistance for lawyers.In Proc.of the Seventh Int.Conf.on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 43-52, New York, 1999.ACM.
29. G.A.W.Vreeswijk.Defeasible dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation.The Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(3):3-27, 1993.
30. G.A.W.Vreeswijk.Abstract argumentation systems.Artificial Intelligence, 90:225-279, 1997.