Skip to main content

2013 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

21. The Added Value of Argumentation

verfasst von : Sanjay Modgil, Francesca Toni, Floris Bex, Ivan Bratko, Carlos I. Chesñevar, Wolfgang Dvořák, Marcelo A. Falappa, Xiuyi Fan, Sarah Alice Gaggl, Alejandro J. García, María P. González, Thomas F. Gordon, João Leite, Martin Možina, Chris Reed, Guillermo R. Simari, Stefan Szeider, Paolo Torroni, Stefan Woltran

Erschienen in: Agreement Technologies

Verlag: Springer Netherlands

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We discuss the value of argumentation in reaching agreements, based on its capability for dealing with conflicts and uncertainty. Logic-based models of argumentation have recently emerged as a key topic within Artificial Intelligence. Key reasons for the success of these models is that they are akin to human models of reasoning and debate, and their generalisation to frameworks for modelling dialogues. They therefore have the potential for bridging between human and machine reasoning in the presence of uncertainty and conflict. We provide an overview of a number of examples that bear witness to this potential, and that illustrate the added value of argumentation. These examples amount to methods and techniques for argumentation to aid machine reasoning (e.g. in the form of machine learning and belief functions) on the one hand and methods and techniques for argumentation to aid human reasoning (e.g. for various forms of decision making and deliberation and for the Web) on the other. We also identify a number of open challenges if this potential is to be realised, and in particular the need for benchmark libraries.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
As witnessed by the recently inaugurated series of international conferences and workshops (www.​comma-conf.​org, www.​mit.​edu/​~irahwan/​argmas/​argmas11, www.​csd.​abdn.​ac.​uk/​~niroren/​TAFA-11) and major European research projects (ARGUGRID: www.​argugrid.​eu, ASPIC: www.​cossac.​org/​projects/​aspic, IMPACT: www.​policy-impact.​eu)
 
2
Our reviews in these sections are by no means comprehensive; rather, selected examples are chosen to illustrate the salient points.
 
3
Different parts of this chapter have been written/edited by different authors, as follows:
  • this Sect. 21.1 has been written by Sanjay Modgil;
  • Section 21.2 has been edited by Francesca Toni, with Sect. 21.2.1 written by Ivan Bratko and Martin Možina and Sect. 21.2.2 written by Francesca Toni;
  • Section 21.3 has been edited by Sanjay Modgil, with Sect. 21.3.1.1 written by Sanjay Modgil, Sect. 21.3.1.2 written by Carlos Chesñevar, Sect. 21.3.1.3 written by Francesca Toni, QUI Sect. 21.3.2.1 written by Sanjay Modgil, Sect. 21.3.2.2 written by Thomas Gordon, Sect. 21.3.2.3 written by Francesca Toni, Sect. 21.3.2.4 written by Xiuyi Fan and Francesca Toni, Sect. 21.3.3 written by Floris Bex, Chris Reed and Sanjay Modgil, and Sect. 21.3.4 written by Joao Leite and Paolo Torroni;
  • Section 21.4 has been written by Wolfgang Dvořák, Sarah Alice Gaggl, Stefan Szeider and Stefan Woltran;
  • Section 21.5 has been written by Sanjay Modgil and Francesca Toni.
 
4
Due to space limitations, we will only roughly describe ABML (see Možina et al. 2007 for precise details).
 
10
Rules, assumptions, and contraries are components of ABA.
 
11
ova.computing.dundee.ac.uk
 
12
Meanwhile, some more insults appeared, which increased the comments counter.
 
13
A 2010 survey illustrates Facebook overtaking Google’s popularity among US Internet users. See “Facebook becomes bigger hit than Google” by By Chris Nuttall and David Gelles on Financial Times, online March 17, 2010 www.​ft.​com/​cms/​s/​2/​67e89ae8-30f7-11df-b057-00144feabdc0.​html#axzz1MSvZe0pb. Recently Facebook is investing on a “social web search” project in order to better exploit its social data. See “Facebook Delves Deeper Into Search” By Douglas MacMillan and Brad Stone on Bloomberg Business Week, online March 29, 2012 www.​businessweek.​com/​articles/​2012-03-28/​facebook-delves-deeper-into-search.
 
21
Answer-Set Programming (ASP) (Niemelä, 1999) is a declarative programming paradigm which allows for succinct representation of combinatorial problems.
 
22
Benchmarking of Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning Systems, Stanford University, CA, USA, March 23–25, 2009
 
Literatur
.
Zurück zum Zitat Amgoud, L. 2000. Modeling dialogues using argumentation. In ICMAS ’00: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on multiAgent systems, 31. Washington: IEEE Computer Society. Amgoud, L. 2000. Modeling dialogues using argumentation. In ICMAS ’00: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on multiAgent systems, 31. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Amgoud, L., and C. Cayrol. 2002. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1–3): 197–215.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Amgoud, L., and C. Cayrol. 2002. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1–3): 197–215.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Amgoud, L., C. Cayrol, M. Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Livet. 2008. On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 23(10): 1062–1093.CrossRefMATH Amgoud, L., C. Cayrol, M. Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Livet. 2008. On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 23(10): 1062–1093.CrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Atkinson, K. 2009. What should we do?:computational representation of persuasive argument in practical reasoning. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool. Atkinson, K. 2009. What should we do?:computational representation of persuasive argument in practical reasoning. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Baroni, P., and M. Giacomin. 2009. Semantics of abstract argument systems. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 25–44. New York: Springer.CrossRef Baroni, P., and M. Giacomin. 2009. Semantics of abstract argument systems. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 25–44. New York: Springer.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Baroni, P., F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G. Guida. 2011. AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(1): 19–37.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Baroni, P., F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G. Guida. 2011. AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(1): 19–37.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Bench-Capon, T.J.M. 2002. Value-based argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (NMR’02), Whistler, 443–454. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. 2002. Value-based argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (NMR’02), Whistler, 443–454.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Bench-Capon, T.J.M. 2003. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Bench-Capon, T.J.M. 2003. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and P.E. Dunne. 2007. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171: 10–15. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and P.E. Dunne. 2007. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171: 10–15.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Berg, T., T. van Gelder, F. Patterson, and S. Teppema. 2009. Critical thinking: Reasoning and communicating with rationale. Amsterdam: Pearson Education Benelux. Berg, T., T. van Gelder, F. Patterson, and S. Teppema. 2009. Critical thinking: Reasoning and communicating with rationale. Amsterdam: Pearson Education Benelux.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Berre, D.L., and L. Simon. 2006. Preface. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2(1–4): 103–143. Berre, D.L., and L. Simon. 2006. Preface. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2(1–4): 103–143.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Besnard, P., and A. Hunter. 2000. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1–2): 203–235.MathSciNet Besnard, P., and A. Hunter. 2000. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1–2): 203–235.MathSciNet
.
Zurück zum Zitat Besnard, P., and S. Doutre. 2004. Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (NMR’02), Whistler, 59–64. Besnard, P., and S. Doutre. 2004. Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (NMR’02), Whistler, 59–64.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Bex, F., S. Modgil, H. Prakken, and C. Reed. 2012. On logical reifications of the argument interchange format. Journal of Logic and Computation. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exs033. Bex, F., S. Modgil, H. Prakken, and C. Reed. 2012. On logical reifications of the argument interchange format. Journal of Logic and Computation. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exs033.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Bistarelli, S., and F. Santini. 2010. A common computational framework for semiring-based argumentation systems. In Proceedings of the 19th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’10), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 215, ed. H. Coelho, R. Studer, and M. Wooldridge, 131–136. Amsterdam: IOS. Bistarelli, S., and F. Santini. 2010. A common computational framework for semiring-based argumentation systems. In Proceedings of the 19th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI’10), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 215, ed. H. Coelho, R. Studer, and M. Wooldridge, 131–136. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Bondarenko, A., P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. 1997. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1–2): 63–101.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Bondarenko, A., P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. 1997. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1–2): 63–101.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Bratko, I., J. Žabkar, and M. MoŽabkarina. 2009. Argument based machine learning. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 463–482. New York: Springer.CrossRef Bratko, I., J. Žabkar, and M. MoŽabkarina. 2009. Argument based machine learning. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 463–482. New York: Springer.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Caminada, M., and L. Amgoud. 2007. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171(5–6): 286–310.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Caminada, M., and L. Amgoud. 2007. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171(5–6): 286–310.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Cayrol, C., and M.C. Lagasquie-Schiex. 2005. Graduality in argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 23: 245–297.MathSciNetMATH Cayrol, C., and M.C. Lagasquie-Schiex. 2005. Graduality in argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 23: 245–297.MathSciNetMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Chesñevar, C., J. McGinnis, S. Modgil, I. Rahwan, C. Reed, G. Simari, M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and S. Willmott. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 293–316.CrossRef Chesñevar, C., J. McGinnis, S. Modgil, I. Rahwan, C. Reed, G. Simari, M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and S. Willmott. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 293–316.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Chesñevar, C., A. Maguitman, and M.P. González. 2009. Empowering recommendation technologies through argumentation. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 403–422. New York: Springer.CrossRef Chesñevar, C., A. Maguitman, and M.P. González. 2009. Empowering recommendation technologies through argumentation. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 403–422. New York: Springer.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Clark, P., and R. Boswell. 1991. Rule induction with CN2: Some recent improvements. In Machine learning – Proceeding of the fifth Europen conference (EWSL-91), Berlin, 151–163. Clark, P., and R. Boswell. 1991. Rule induction with CN2: Some recent improvements. In Machine learning – Proceeding of the fifth Europen conference (EWSL-91), Berlin, 151–163.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Denecker, M., J. Vennekens, S. Bond, M. Gebser, and M. Truszczynski. 2009. The second answer set programming competition. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning (LPNMR 2009), LNCS, vol. 5753, ed. E. Erdem, F. Lin, and T. Schaub, 637–654. Berlin: Springer. Denecker, M., J. Vennekens, S. Bond, M. Gebser, and M. Truszczynski. 2009. The second answer set programming competition. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning (LPNMR 2009), LNCS, vol. 5753, ed. E. Erdem, F. Lin, and T. Schaub, 637–654. Berlin: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dung, P.M. 1993. An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. In Proceedings of the tenth logic programming conference, 616–630. Cambridge: MIT. Dung, P.M. 1993. An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. In Proceedings of the tenth logic programming conference, 616–630. Cambridge: MIT.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dung, P., R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. 2006. Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170: 114–159.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Dung, P., R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. 2006. Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170: 114–159.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dung, P., P. Mancarella, and F. Toni. 2007. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 642–674. Special issue on argumentation in artificial intelligence. Dung, P., P. Mancarella, and F. Toni. 2007. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 642–674. Special issue on argumentation in artificial intelligence.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dung, P., R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. 2009. Assumption-based argumentation. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 199–218. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef Dung, P., R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. 2009. Assumption-based argumentation. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 199–218. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dung, P.M., P.M., Thang, and F. Toni. 2008. Towards argumentation-based contract negotiation. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’08). Amsterdam: IOS. Dung, P.M., P.M., Thang, and F. Toni. 2008. Towards argumentation-based contract negotiation. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’08). Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dung, P.M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2): 321–358.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Dung, P.M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2): 321–358.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dung, P.M., P.M. Thang, and N.D. Hung. 2009. Argument-based decision making and negotiation in e-business: Contracting a land lease for a computer assembly plant. In Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA IX), Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 5405, ed. M. Fisher, F. Sadri, and M. Thielscher, 154–172. Berlin: Springer. Dung, P.M., P.M. Thang, and N.D. Hung. 2009. Argument-based decision making and negotiation in e-business: Contracting a land lease for a computer assembly plant. In Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA IX), Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 5405, ed. M. Fisher, F. Sadri, and M. Thielscher, 154–172. Berlin: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dunne, P.E., T. Hunter, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and M. Wooldridge. 2011. Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artificial Intelligence 175: 457–486.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Dunne, P.E., T. Hunter, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and M. Wooldridge. 2011. Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artificial Intelligence 175: 457–486.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dvořák, W., S. Ordyniak, and S. Szeider. 2012a. Augmenting tractable fragments of abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 186: 157–173.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Dvořák, W., S. Ordyniak, and S. Szeider. 2012a. Augmenting tractable fragments of abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 186: 157–173.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Dvořák, W., Pichler, and S. Woltran. 2012b. Towards fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 186: 1–37. Dvořák, W., Pichler, and S. Woltran. 2012b. Towards fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 186: 1–37.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Egly, U., and S. Woltran. 2006. Reasoning in argumentation frameworks using quantified boolean formulas. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’06), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 133–144. Amsterdam: IOS. Egly, U., and S. Woltran. 2006. Reasoning in argumentation frameworks using quantified boolean formulas. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’06), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 133–144. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Egly, U., S.A. Gaggl, and S. Woltran. 2010. Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks. Argument and Computation 1(2): 147–177.CrossRef Egly, U., S.A. Gaggl, and S. Woltran. 2010. Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks. Argument and Computation 1(2): 147–177.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Ennals, R., B. Trushkowsky, J.M. Agosta. 2010. Highlighting disputed claims on the web. In Proceedings of the 19th WWW, 341–350. New York: ACM. Ennals, R., B. Trushkowsky, J.M. Agosta. 2010. Highlighting disputed claims on the web. In Proceedings of the 19th WWW, 341–350. New York: ACM.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Falappa, M., A. García, G. Kern-Isberner, and G. Simari. 2011. On the evolving relation between belief revision and argumentation. Knowledge Engineering Review 26(1): 35–43.CrossRef Falappa, M., A. García, G. Kern-Isberner, and G. Simari. 2011. On the evolving relation between belief revision and argumentation. Knowledge Engineering Review 26(1): 35–43.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Falappa, M., G. Kern-Isberner, and G.R. Simari. 2009. Argumentation in artificial intelligence, chap. Belief revision and argumentation Theory, ed. I. Rahwan, G.R. Simari, 341–360. New York: Springer. Falappa, M., G. Kern-Isberner, and G.R. Simari. 2009. Argumentation in artificial intelligence, chap. Belief revision and argumentation Theory, ed. I. Rahwan, G.R. Simari, 341–360. New York: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Fan, X., and F. Toni. 2011. Assumption-based argumentation dialogues. In Proceedings of the IJCAI 2011, Pasadena. Fan, X., and F. Toni. 2011. Assumption-based argumentation dialogues. In Proceedings of the IJCAI 2011, Pasadena.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Fan, X., and F. Toni. 2012a. Agent strategies for aba-based information-seeking and inquiry dialogues. In Proceedings of the ECAI 2012), Montpellier. Fan, X., and F. Toni. 2012a. Agent strategies for aba-based information-seeking and inquiry dialogues. In Proceedings of the ECAI 2012), Montpellier.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Fan, X., and F. Toni. 2012b. Argumentation dialogues for two-agent conflict resolution. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA12), Amsterdam: IOS. Fan, X., and F. Toni. 2012b. Argumentation dialogues for two-agent conflict resolution. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA12), Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Fan, X., and F. Toni. 2012c. Mechanism design for argumentation-based persuasion dialogues. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA12), Amsterdam: IOS. Fan, X., and F. Toni. 2012c. Mechanism design for argumentation-based persuasion dialogues. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA12), Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Feigenbaum, E.A. 2003. Some challenges and grand challenges for computational intelligence. Source Journal of the ACM 50(1): 32–40.MathSciNet Feigenbaum, E.A. 2003. Some challenges and grand challenges for computational intelligence. Source Journal of the ACM 50(1): 32–40.MathSciNet
.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferretti, E., M. Errecalde, A. García, and G.R. Simari. 2008. Decision rules and arguments in defeasible decision making. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of arguments (COMMA), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 172, ed. P. Besnard et al., 171–182. Amsterdam: IOS. Ferretti, E., M. Errecalde, A. García, and G.R. Simari. 2008. Decision rules and arguments in defeasible decision making. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of arguments (COMMA), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 172, ed. P. Besnard et al., 171–182. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat García, A., and G. Simari. 2004. Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1): 95–138.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH García, A., and G. Simari. 2004. Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1): 95–138.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat García, A., N. Rotstein, M. Tucat, and G.R. Simari. 2007. An argumentative reasoning service for deliberative agents. In KSEM 2007, LNAI, vol. 4798, 128–139. Berlin: Springer. García, A., N. Rotstein, M. Tucat, and G.R. Simari. 2007. An argumentative reasoning service for deliberative agents. In KSEM 2007, LNAI, vol. 4798, 128–139. Berlin: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat García, A.J., Rotstein, N., Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.R.: Explaining why something is warranted in defeasible logic programming. In ExaCt, Copenhagen, ed. T.R.B. et al., 25–36. García, A.J., Rotstein, N., Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.R.: Explaining why something is warranted in defeasible logic programming. In ExaCt, Copenhagen, ed. T.R.B. et al., 25–36.
.
Zurück zum Zitat García, D., S. Gottifredi, P. Krümpelmann, M. Thimm, G. Kern-Isberner, M. Falappa, and A. García. 2011. On influence and contractions in defeasible logic programming. In LPNMR, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6645, ed. J.P. Delgrande and W. Faber, 199–204. Berlin: Springer. García, D., S. Gottifredi, P. Krümpelmann, M. Thimm, G. Kern-Isberner, M. Falappa, and A. García. 2011. On influence and contractions in defeasible logic programming. In LPNMR, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6645, ed. J.P. Delgrande and W. Faber, 199–204. Berlin: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Girle, R., D. Hitchcock, P. McBurney, and B. Verheij. 2003. Argumentation machines. New frontiers in argument and computation, chap. Decision support for practical reasoning: A theoretical and computational perspective, 55–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Girle, R., D. Hitchcock, P. McBurney, and B. Verheij. 2003. Argumentation machines. New frontiers in argument and computation, chap. Decision support for practical reasoning: A theoretical and computational perspective, 55–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Glasspool, D., A. Oettinger, J. Smith-Spark, F. Castillo, V. Monaghan, and J. Fox. 2007. Supporting medical planning by mitigating cognitive load. Methods of Information in Medicine 46: 636–640. Glasspool, D., A. Oettinger, J. Smith-Spark, F. Castillo, V. Monaghan, and J. Fox. 2007. Supporting medical planning by mitigating cognitive load. Methods of Information in Medicine 46: 636–640.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Godbole, N., M. Srinivasaiah, and S. Skiena. 2007. Large-scale sentiment analysis for news and blogs. In Proceedings of the international Conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), Salt Lake City. Godbole, N., M. Srinivasaiah, and S. Skiena. 2007. Large-scale sentiment analysis for news and blogs. In Proceedings of the international Conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), Salt Lake City.
.
Zurück zum Zitat González, M., J. Lorés, and T. Granollers. 2008. Enhancing usability testing through datamining techniques: A novel approach to detecting usability problem patterns for a context of use. Information and Software Technology 50(6): 547–568.CrossRef González, M., J. Lorés, and T. Granollers. 2008. Enhancing usability testing through datamining techniques: A novel approach to detecting usability problem patterns for a context of use. Information and Software Technology 50(6): 547–568.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat González, M., C. Chesñevar, N. Pinwart, M. Gomez Lucero. Developing argument assistant systems from usability viewpoint. In Proceedings of the international conference on knowledge management and information sharing, Valencia, 157–163. INSTICC. González, M., C. Chesñevar, N. Pinwart, M. Gomez Lucero. Developing argument assistant systems from usability viewpoint. In Proceedings of the international conference on knowledge management and information sharing, Valencia, 157–163. INSTICC.
.
Zurück zum Zitat González, M.P., S. Gottifredi, A.J. García, and G.R. Simari. 2011. Towards argument representational tools for hybrid argumentation systems. In HCI (12), Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6772, ed. G. Salvendy and M.J. Smith, 236–245. Berlin: Springer. González, M.P., S. Gottifredi, A.J. García, and G.R. Simari. 2011. Towards argument representational tools for hybrid argumentation systems. In HCI (12), Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6772, ed. G. Salvendy and M.J. Smith, 236–245. Berlin: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Gordon, T.F. 1995. The pleadings game. An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic. Gordon, T.F. 1995. The pleadings game. An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2006. The Carneades argumentation framework – using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’06), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 144, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 195–207. Amsterdam: IOS. Gordon, T.F., and D. Walton. 2006. The Carneades argumentation framework – using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’06), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 144, ed. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 195–207. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Governatori, G., and M.J. Maher. 2000. An argumentation-theoretic characterization of defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the fourteenth European conference on artificial intelligence, Berlin, 469–473. Governatori, G., and M.J. Maher. 2000. An argumentation-theoretic characterization of defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the fourteenth European conference on artificial intelligence, Berlin, 469–473.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Groznik, V., M. Guid, A. Sadikov, M. Možina, D. Georgijev, V. Kragelj, S. Ribarič, Z. Pirtošek, and I. Bratko. 2011. Elicitation of neurological knowledge with ABML. In Proceedings of the 13th conference on artificial intelligence in medicine (AIME’11), Bled, July 2–6, 2011. Groznik, V., M. Guid, A. Sadikov, M. Možina, D. Georgijev, V. Kragelj, S. Ribarič, Z. Pirtošek, and I. Bratko. 2011. Elicitation of neurological knowledge with ABML. In Proceedings of the 13th conference on artificial intelligence in medicine (AIME’11), Bled, July 2–6, 2011.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Heras, S., K. Atkinson, V.J. Botti, F. Grasso, V. Julian, and P. McBurney. 2010. How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10), Desenzano del Garda, September 8–10, 2010, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, ed. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G.R. Simari, 267–274. Amsterdam: IOS. Heras, S., K. Atkinson, V.J. Botti, F. Grasso, V. Julian, and P. McBurney. 2010. How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10), Desenzano del Garda, September 8–10, 2010, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, ed. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G.R. Simari, 267–274. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoos, H.H., and T. Stützle. 2000. SATLIB: An online resource for research on SAT. In Proceedings of the SAT 2000, 283–292. Amsterdam: IOS. Hoos, H.H., and T. Stützle. 2000. SATLIB: An online resource for research on SAT. In Proceedings of the SAT 2000, 283–292. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Hussain, A., and F. Toni. 2008. On the benefits of argumentation for negotiation – preliminary version. In Proceedings of 6th European workshop on multi-agent systems (EUMAS-2008), Bath. Hussain, A., and F. Toni. 2008. On the benefits of argumentation for negotiation – preliminary version. In Proceedings of 6th European workshop on multi-agent systems (EUMAS-2008), Bath.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Jennings, N.R., P. Faratin, A.R. Lomuscio, S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and M. Wooldridge. 2001. Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2): 199–215.CrossRef Jennings, N.R., P. Faratin, A.R. Lomuscio, S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and M. Wooldridge. 2001. Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2): 199–215.CrossRef
.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Leite, J., and J. Martins. 2011. Social abstract argumentation. In IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Barcelona, Catalonia, July 16–22, 2011, pp. 2287–2292. IJCAI/AAAI. Leite, J., and J. Martins. 2011. Social abstract argumentation. In IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Barcelona, Catalonia, July 16–22, 2011, pp. 2287–2292. IJCAI/AAAI.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Lucero, M.G., C. Chesñevar, and Simari, G.R. 2009. On the accrual of arguments in defeasible logic programming. In IJCAI, Pasadena, ed. C. Boutilier, 804–809. Lucero, M.G., C. Chesñevar, and Simari, G.R. 2009. On the accrual of arguments in defeasible logic programming. In IJCAI, Pasadena, ed. C. Boutilier, 804–809.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Matt, P.A., and Toni, F. 2008. A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In 11th European conference on logics in artificial intelligence, Dresden. Matt, P.A., and Toni, F. 2008. A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In 11th European conference on logics in artificial intelligence, Dresden.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Matt, P.A., F. Toni, T. Stournaras, D. Dimitrelos. 2008. Argumentation-based agents for eprocurement. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2008) – Industry and applications track, Estoril, ed. M. Berger, B. Burg, and S. Nishiyama, 71–74. Matt, P.A., F. Toni, T. Stournaras, D. Dimitrelos. 2008. Argumentation-based agents for eprocurement. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2008) – Industry and applications track, Estoril, ed. M. Berger, B. Burg, and S. Nishiyama, 71–74.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Matt, P.A., F. Toni, and J. Vaccari. 2009. Dominant decisions by argumentation agents, argumentation in multi-agent systems. In ArgMAS 2009, Budapest, ed. P. McBurney, S. Parson, I. Rawan, and N. Maudet. Matt, P.A., F. Toni, and J. Vaccari. 2009. Dominant decisions by argumentation agents, argumentation in multi-agent systems. In ArgMAS 2009, Budapest, ed. P. McBurney, S. Parson, I. Rawan, and N. Maudet.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Matt, P.A., M. Morge, and F. Toni. 2010. Combining statistics and arguments to compute trust. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2010), Toronto, ed. W. van der Hoek and G.A. Kaminka. Matt, P.A., M. Morge, and F. Toni. 2010. Combining statistics and arguments to compute trust. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2010), Toronto, ed. W. van der Hoek and G.A. Kaminka.
.
Zurück zum Zitat McGinnis, J., K. Stathis, and F. Toni. 2011. A formal model of agent-oriented virtual organisations and their formation. Multiagent and Grid Systems 7(6): 291–310. McGinnis, J., K. Stathis, and F. Toni. 2011. A formal model of agent-oriented virtual organisations and their formation. Multiagent and Grid Systems 7(6): 291–310.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Mercier, H., and Sperber, D. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74.CrossRef Mercier, H., and Sperber, D. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74.CrossRef
.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Modgil, S., and M. Caminada. 2009. Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 105–129. Springer. Modgil, S., and M. Caminada. 2009. Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 105–129. Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Moguillansky, M., N. Rotstein, M. Falappa, A. García, and G.R. Simari. 2008. Argument theory change: Revision upon warrant. In Proceedings of the twenty-third conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI 2008, Chicago, 132–137. Moguillansky, M., N. Rotstein, M. Falappa, A. García, and G.R. Simari. 2008. Argument theory change: Revision upon warrant. In Proceedings of the twenty-third conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI 2008, Chicago, 132–137.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Moguillansky, M., N. Rotstein, M. Falappa, A. García, and G.R. Simari. 2010. Argument theory change through defeater activation. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 216, ed. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G.R. Simari, 359–366. Amsterdam: IOS. Moguillansky, M., N. Rotstein, M. Falappa, A. García, and G.R. Simari. 2010. Argument theory change through defeater activation. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 216, ed. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G.R. Simari, 359–366. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Možina, M. 2009. Argument based machine learning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ljubljana: Faculty of Computer and Information Science, Ljubljana. Možina, M. 2009. Argument based machine learning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ljubljana: Faculty of Computer and Information Science, Ljubljana.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Možina, M., M. Guid, J. Krivec, A. Sadikov, and I. Bratko. 2008. Fighting knowledge acquisition bottleneck with argument based machine learning. In The 18th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), Patras, 234–238. Možina, M., M. Guid, J. Krivec, A. Sadikov, and I. Bratko. 2008. Fighting knowledge acquisition bottleneck with argument based machine learning. In The 18th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), Patras, 234–238.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Možina, M., M. Guid, J. Krivec, A. Sadikov, and I. Bratko. 2010. Learning to explain with ABML. In Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on explanation-aware computing (ExaCt’2010), Lisbon, pp. 37–49, ISNN 1613–0073. CEUR-WS.org. Možina, M., M. Guid, J. Krivec, A. Sadikov, and I. Bratko. 2010. Learning to explain with ABML. In Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on explanation-aware computing (ExaCt’2010), Lisbon, pp. 37–49, ISNN 1613–0073. CEUR-WS.org.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Možina, M., J. Žabkar, and I. Bratko. 2007. Argument based machine learning. Artificial Intelligence 171(10/15): 922–937.MathSciNetMATH Možina, M., J. Žabkar, and I. Bratko. 2007. Argument based machine learning. Artificial Intelligence 171(10/15): 922–937.MathSciNetMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3–4): 241–273.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3–4): 241–273.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Pang, B., and L. Lee. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2(1–2): 1–135.CrossRef Pang, B., and L. Lee. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2(1–2): 1–135.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Podlaszewski, M., M. Caminada, and G. Pigozzi. 2011. An implementation of basic argumentation components (demonstration). In Proceedings AAMAS 2011, Taipei, 1307–1308. Podlaszewski, M., M. Caminada, and G. Pigozzi. 2011. An implementation of basic argumentation components (demonstration). In Proceedings AAMAS 2011, Taipei, 1307–1308.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Prakken, H. 2001. Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL-01), 119–128. New York: ACM Press. Prakken, H. 2001. Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL-01), 119–128. New York: ACM Press.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Prakken, H. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6): 1009–1040.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Prakken, H. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6): 1009–1040.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1(2): 93–124.CrossRef Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1(2): 93–124.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Rahwan, I., S.D. Ramchurn, N.R. Jennings, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and L. Sonenberg. 2004. Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4): 343–375.CrossRef Rahwan, I., S.D. Ramchurn, N.R. Jennings, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and L. Sonenberg. 2004. Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4): 343–375.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Rahwan, I., and C. Reed. 2009. The argument interchange format. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 383–402. New York: Springer.CrossRef Rahwan, I., and C. Reed. 2009. The argument interchange format. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, 383–402. New York: Springer.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Rahwan, I., F. Zablith, and C. Reed. 2007. Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence 171: 897–921.CrossRef Rahwan, I., F. Zablith, and C. Reed. 2007. Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence 171: 897–921.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Reed, C., and G. Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis. Diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 13(4): 961–980. Reed, C., and G. Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis. Diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 13(4): 961–980.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Reed, C., S. Wells, K. Budzynska, J. Devereux. 2010. Building arguments with argumentation: The role of illocutionary force in computational models of argument. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10), Desenzano del Garda. Amsterdam: IOS. Reed, C., S. Wells, K. Budzynska, J. Devereux. 2010. Building arguments with argumentation: The role of illocutionary force in computational models of argument. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10), Desenzano del Garda. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Rotstein, N., M. Moguillansky, M. Falappa, A. García, and G.R. Simari. 2008. Argument theory change: Revision upon Warrant. In Proceedings of the international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’08), Toulouse, 336–347. Amsterdam: IOS. Rotstein, N., M. Moguillansky, M. Falappa, A. García, and G.R. Simari. 2008. Argument theory change: Revision upon Warrant. In Proceedings of the international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’08), Toulouse, 336–347. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Sadikov, A., M. Možina, M. Guid, J. Krivec, and I. Bratko. 2006. Automated chess tutor. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on computers and games, Turin. Sadikov, A., M. Možina, M. Guid, J. Krivec, and I. Bratko. 2006. Automated chess tutor. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on computers and games, Turin.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Schneider, J., A. Passant, T. Groza, and J.G. Breslin. 2010. Argumentation 3.0: How semantic web technologies can improve argumentation modeling in web 2.0 environments. In Proceedings of the international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10), Desenzano del Garda, September 8–10, 2010, Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 216, ed. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G.R. Simari, 439–446. Amsterdam: IOS. Schneider, J., A. Passant, T. Groza, and J.G. Breslin. 2010. Argumentation 3.0: How semantic web technologies can improve argumentation modeling in web 2.0 environments. In Proceedings of the international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10), Desenzano del Garda, September 8–10, 2010, Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 216, ed. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G.R. Simari, 439–446. Amsterdam: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Shafer, G. 1985. Probability judgment in artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the first annual conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI’85), Los Angeles, ed. L.N. Kanal and J.F. Lemmer, 127–136. Elsevier. Shafer, G. 1985. Probability judgment in artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the first annual conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI’85), Los Angeles, ed. L.N. Kanal and J.F. Lemmer, 127–136. Elsevier.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Snaith, M., J. Lawrence, and C. Reed. 2010. Mixed initiative argument in public deliberation. In ed. F. De Cindio et al., From e-Participation to online deliberation, proceedings of OD2010, Leeds. Snaith, M., J. Lawrence, and C. Reed. 2010. Mixed initiative argument in public deliberation. In ed. F. De Cindio et al., From e-Participation to online deliberation, proceedings of OD2010, Leeds.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Tolchinsky, P., U. Cortés, S. Modgil, F. Caballero, and A. Lopez-Navidad. 2006a. Increasing the availability of human organs for transplantation through argumentation based deliberation among agents. IEEE Special Issue on Intelligent Agents in Healthcare 21(6): 30–37. Tolchinsky, P., U. Cortés, S. Modgil, F. Caballero, and A. Lopez-Navidad. 2006a. Increasing the availability of human organs for transplantation through argumentation based deliberation among agents. IEEE Special Issue on Intelligent Agents in Healthcare 21(6): 30–37.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Tolchinsky, P., S. Modgil, U. Cortés, M. Sánchez-Marré. 2006b. Cbr and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument, pp. 71–82. Liverpool: IOS. Tolchinsky, P., S. Modgil, U. Cortés, M. Sánchez-Marré. 2006b. Cbr and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument, pp. 71–82. Liverpool: IOS.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Tolchinsky, P., S. Modgil, K. Atkinson, P. McBurney, U. Cortes. 2012. Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 25: 209–259.CrossRef Tolchinsky, P., S. Modgil, K. Atkinson, P. McBurney, U. Cortes. 2012. Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 25: 209–259.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Toni, F. 2008. Argumentative KGP agents for service composition. In Proceedings of the AITA08, architectures for intelligent theory-based Agents, AAAI spring symposium, Stanford University, ed. M. Balduccini and C. Baral. Toni, F. 2008. Argumentative KGP agents for service composition. In Proceedings of the AITA08, architectures for intelligent theory-based Agents, AAAI spring symposium, Stanford University, ed. M. Balduccini and C. Baral.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Toni, F. 2010. Argumentative agents. In Proceedings of the international multiconference on computer science and information technology, 223–229. Piscataway: IEEE. Toni, F. 2010. Argumentative agents. In Proceedings of the international multiconference on computer science and information technology, 223–229. Piscataway: IEEE.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Toni, F., and M. Sergot. 2011. Argumentation and ASP. In LP, KR, and NMR: Essays in honor of michael gelfond. Berlin: Springer. Toni, F., and M. Sergot. 2011. Argumentation and ASP. In LP, KR, and NMR: Essays in honor of michael gelfond. Berlin: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Toni, F., and P. Torroni. 2012. Bottom-up argumentation. In First international workshop on theory and application, TAFA 2011, Barcelona, July 16–17, 2011, Revised selected papers, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 7132, ed. S. Modgil, N. Oren, and F. Toni, 249–262. Berlin: Springer. Toni, F., and P. Torroni. 2012. Bottom-up argumentation. In First international workshop on theory and application, TAFA 2011, Barcelona, July 16–17, 2011, Revised selected papers, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 7132, ed. S. Modgil, N. Oren, and F. Toni, 249–262. Berlin: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Toni, F., M. Grammatikou, S. Kafetzoglou, L. Lymberopoulos, S. Papavassileiou, D. Gaertner, M. Morge, S. Bromuri, J. McGinnis, K. Stathis, V. Curcin, M. Ghanem, and L. Guo. 2008. The ArguGRID platform: An overview. In Proceedings of grid economics and business models, 5th international workshop (GECON 2008), Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 5206, ed. J. Altmann, D. Neumann, and T. Fahringer, 217–225. Berlin: Springer. Toni, F., M. Grammatikou, S. Kafetzoglou, L. Lymberopoulos, S. Papavassileiou, D. Gaertner, M. Morge, S. Bromuri, J. McGinnis, K. Stathis, V. Curcin, M. Ghanem, and L. Guo. 2008. The ArguGRID platform: An overview. In Proceedings of grid economics and business models, 5th international workshop (GECON 2008), Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 5206, ed. J. Altmann, D. Neumann, and T. Fahringer, 217–225. Berlin: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Torroni, P., M. Prandini, M. Ramilli, J. Leite, and J. Martins. 2010. Arguments against the troll. In Proceedings of the eleventh AI*IA symposium on artificial Intelligence, Brescia, Arti Grafiche Apollonio, 232–235. Torroni, P., M. Prandini, M. Ramilli, J. Leite, and J. Martins. 2010. Arguments against the troll. In Proceedings of the eleventh AI*IA symposium on artificial Intelligence, Brescia, Arti Grafiche Apollonio, 232–235.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
.
Zurück zum Zitat van Veenen, J., and H. Prakken. 2006. A protocol for arguing about rejections in negotiation. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2005), affiliated to AAMAS 2005, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 4049, ed. S. Parsons, N. Maudet, P. Moraitis, and I. Rahwan, 138–153. Berlin: Springer. van Veenen, J., and H. Prakken. 2006. A protocol for arguing about rejections in negotiation. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2005), affiliated to AAMAS 2005, Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 4049, ed. S. Parsons, N. Maudet, P. Moraitis, and I. Rahwan, 138–153. Berlin: Springer.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Verheij, B. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial intelligence 150(1–2): 291–324.CrossRef Verheij, B. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial intelligence 150(1–2): 291–324.CrossRef
.
Zurück zum Zitat Verheij, B. 2007. A labeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation. In Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2007), Hyderabad, ed. M.M. Veloso, 623–628. Verheij, B. 2007. A labeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation. In Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2007), Hyderabad, ed. M.M. Veloso, 623–628.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Walton, D.N. 1996. Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Walton, D.N. 1996. Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY series in logic and language. Albany: State University of New York. Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY series in logic and language. Albany: State University of New York.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Walton, D.N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008.Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Walton, D.N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008.Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Wells, S., C. Gourlay, and C. Reed. 2009. Argument blogging. In 9th international workshop on computational models of natural argument, Pasadena. Wells, S., C. Gourlay, and C. Reed. 2009. Argument blogging. In 9th international workshop on computational models of natural argument, Pasadena.
.
Zurück zum Zitat Wooldridge, M. 2003. Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 347–376.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH Wooldridge, M. 2003. Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 347–376.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
.
Zurück zum Zitat Yu, B., and M.P. Singh. 2002. Distributed reputation management for electronic commerce. Computational Intelligence 18(4): 535–549.MathSciNetCrossRef Yu, B., and M.P. Singh. 2002. Distributed reputation management for electronic commerce. Computational Intelligence 18(4): 535–549.MathSciNetCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The Added Value of Argumentation
verfasst von
Sanjay Modgil
Francesca Toni
Floris Bex
Ivan Bratko
Carlos I. Chesñevar
Wolfgang Dvořák
Marcelo A. Falappa
Xiuyi Fan
Sarah Alice Gaggl
Alejandro J. García
María P. González
Thomas F. Gordon
João Leite
Martin Možina
Chris Reed
Guillermo R. Simari
Stefan Szeider
Paolo Torroni
Stefan Woltran
Copyright-Jahr
2013
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_21