Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Group Decision and Negotiation Support System for argumentation based reasoning

  • Reasoning with Changing and Incomplete Information
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Learning and Reasoning with Complex Representations (PRICAI 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1359))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper describes a Group Decision and Negotiation Support System for cooperative or non-cooperative argumentative discourses. The system provides agents means of expressing and weighing their individual arguments and preferences, the aim being the selection of a certain choice. It also supports defeasible and qualitative reasoning in the presence of ill-structured information. Argumentation is performed through a set of discourse acts which call a variety of procedures for the propagation of information in the corresponding discussion graph.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B.: Conceptual Database Design: An Entity-Relationship Approach. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bench-Capon, Tr.: Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. In J.C. Hage, T.J.M. Bench-Capon, M.J. Cohen and H.J. van den Herik (eds.), Legal knowledge based systems — Telecommunication and AI & Law, Koninklijke Vermande BV, Lelystad, 1995, pp. 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, Montreal, 1995, pp. 1449–1455.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benferhat, S., Cayrol, C., Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Inconsistency Management and Prioritized Syntax-Based Entailment. In Proceedings of the 13th IJCAI, Chambery, 1993, pp. 640–645.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brewka, G.: Preferred Subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Proceedings of the 11th IJCAI, Detroit, 1989, pp. 1043–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brewka, G.: Reasoning about Priorities in Default Logic. In Proceedings of the 12th AAAI, Seattle, 1994, pp. 940–945.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brewka, G.: A Reconstruction of Rescher's Theory of Formal Disputation Based on Default Logic. In Working Notes of the 12th AAAI Workshop on Computational Dialectics, Seattle, 1994, pp. 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brewka, G., Gordon, T.: How to Buy a Porsche: An Approach to Defeasible Decision Making. In Working Notes of the 12th AAAI Workshop on Computational Dialectics, Seattle, 1994, pp. 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cayrol, C.: On the Relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment. In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, Montreal, 1995, pp. 1443–1448.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Conklin, E.J.: Capturing Organizational Memory. In D. Coleman (ed.) Groupware '92, 1992, pp. 133–137.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. In Proceedings of the 13th IJCAI, Chambery, 1993, pp. 852–857.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, F.: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erblaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Farley, A.M., Freeman, K.: Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th Int. Conference on AI and Law, 1995, pp. 156–164.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Geffner, H., Pearl, J.: Conditional Entailment: Bridging two Approaches to Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53 (2–3), 1992, pp. 209–244.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Gordon, T.: The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Green, D.W.: Arguments and Mental Models. In Proceedings of the Int. Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Heidrich. C.H.: Montague-grammars for Argumentative Dialogues. In Barth & Martens (Eds.) Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hurwitz, R., Mallery, J.C.: The Open Meeting: A Web-Based System for Conferencing and Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 4th Int. WWW Conference, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Karacapilidis, N.I.: Planning under Uncertainty: A Qualitative Approach. In C. Pinto-Ferreira and N.J. Mamede (eds.), Progress in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 990, Springer-Verlag, 1995, pp. 285–296.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Karacapilidis, N.I., Papadias, D., Gordon, T.: An Argumentation Based Framework for Defeasible and Qualitative Reasoning. Advances in Arificial Intelligence, LNAI 1159, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996, pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Knuth, D. E.: Fundamental Algorithms, Art of Computer Programming, Vol.1, Addison-Wesley, Second Edition, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J.: Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Paper 131, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Grundlagen der Plannung, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lueken, G-L.: Incommensurability, Rules of Argumentation and Anticipation. In Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conference of Argumentation, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mackworth, A., Freuder, E.: The Complexity of some Polynomial Network Consistency Algorithms for Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Artificial Intelligence 25, 1985, pp. 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pinkas, G.: Propositional Non-Monotonic Reasoning and Inconsistency in Symmetric Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 12th IJCAI, Sydney, 1991, pp. 525–530.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pollock, J.: Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 1988, pp. 481–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prakken, H.: Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Ph.D. Dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Prakken, H.: From Logic to Dialectics in Legal Argument. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on AI and Law, ACM Press, 1995, pp. 165–174.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reiter, R.: A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 1980, pp. 81–132.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Rescher, N.: Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rissland, E.L., Skalak, D.B.: Cabaret: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34, 1991, pp. 839–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 1973, pp. 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sian, S.S.: Adaptation based on cooperative learning in multi-agent systems. In Y. Demazeau and J.P. Müller (eds.), Decentralized AI 2, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1991, pp. 257–272.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53 (2–3), 1992, pp. 125–157.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Sycara, K.: Resolving Goal Conflicts via Negotiation. In Proceedings of the 7th AAAI, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 1988, pp. 245–250.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sycara, K.: Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods. Ph.D. diss., School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Valesio, P.: Novantiqua: Rhetorics as a Contemporary Theory. Indiana University Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yakemovic, K.C.B., Conklin, E.J.: Report on a Development Project Use of an Issue-Based Information System. In F. Halasz (ed.), Proceedings of CSCW 90, LA, 1990, pp. 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

  40. http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/HyperNews/get/www/collab/conferencing.html.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INRIA Sophia Antipolis, Action AID, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

    Nikos Karacapilidis

  2. Dept. of Computer Science, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Dimitris Papadias

Authors
  1. Nikos Karacapilidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitris Papadias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Grigoris Antoniou Aditya K. Ghose Mirosław Truszczyński

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D. (1998). A Group Decision and Negotiation Support System for argumentation based reasoning. In: Antoniou, G., Ghose, A.K., Truszczyński, M. (eds) Learning and Reasoning with Complex Representations. PRICAI 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1359. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64413-X_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64413-X_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64413-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69780-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation