Research challenges for argumentation

  • Jürgen Dix
  • Simon Parsons
  • Henry Prakken
  • Guillermo Simari
Special Issue Paper


Research Challenge Meta Data Argumentation System Defeasible Reasoning Brooklyn College 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Besnard P, Hunter A (2008) Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bex FJ, van den Braak SW, van Oostendorp H, Prakken H, Verheij B, Vreeswijk G (2007) Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments? Law Probabil Risk 6:145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ches~nevar C, Maguitman A, Loui R (2000) Logical models of argument. ACM Comput Surveys 32(4):337–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ches~nevar CI, Maguitman AG (2004) ArgueNet: An Argument-Based Recommender System for Solving Web Search Queries. In: Yager RR, Sgurev VS (eds) Second IEEE Conference on Intelligent Systems, Varna, Bulgary, June 22–24, 2004Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon TJM, Dunne PE (2007) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif Intell 171(10–15):619–641CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garcia AJ, Rotstein ND, Simari GR (2007) Dialectical Explanations in Defeasible Argumentation. Procs. of the 9th European Conf on Symbolic and Qualitative Aspects of Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007). LNCS v. 4724, Tunez, pp 295–307Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Girle R, Hitchcock D, McBurney P, Verheij B (2004) Decision Support for Practical Reasoning. In: Reed C, Norman T (Eds) Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 55–84Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunter A (2001) Hybrid argumentation systems for structured news reports. Knowl Engin Rev 16:295–223Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pollock J (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cogn Sci 11:481–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pollock J (2006) Against optimality: logical foundations for decision-theoretic planning in autonomous agents. Comput Intell 22(1):1–25CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakken H, Vreeswijk G (2002) Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay D, Guenther F (eds) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol 4. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 219–318Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Dix
    • 1
  • Simon Parsons
    • 2
  • Henry Prakken
    • 3
    • 4
  • Guillermo Simari
    • 5
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer Science, Chair for Computational IntelligenceNiedersächsische Technische Hochschule (NTH), Standort ClausthalClausthalGermany
  2. 2.Brooklyn CollegeBrooklynUSA
  3. 3.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Dept. of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversidad Nacional del SurBahia BlancaArgentina

Personalised recommendations