Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 211–259 | Cite as

A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation

  • Jamal Bentahar
  • Bernard Moulin
  • Micheline Bélanger
Article

Abstract

Understanding argumentation and its role in human reasoning has been a continuous subject of investigation for scholars from the ancient Greek philosophers to current researchers in philosophy, logic and artificial intelligence. In recent years, argumentation models have been used in different areas such as knowledge representation, explanation, proof elaboration, commonsense reasoning, logic programming, legal reasoning, decision making, and negotiation. However, these models address quite specific needs and there is need for a conceptual framework that would organize and compare existing argumentation-based models and methods. Such a framework would be very useful especially for researchers and practitioners who want to select appropriate argumentation models or techniques to be incorporated in new software systems with argumentation capabilities. In this paper, we propose such a conceptual framework, based on taxonomy of the most important argumentation models, approaches and systems found in the literature. This framework highlights the similarities and differences between these argumentation models. As an illustration of the practical use of this framework, we present a case study which shows how we used this framework to select and enrich an argumentation model in a knowledge acquisition project which aimed at representing argumentative knowledge contained in texts critiquing military courses of action.

Keywords

Argumentation models Argumentation theory Courses of action Knowledge representation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvarado S, Dyer M (1985) Analogy recognition and comprehension in editorials. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference of the cognitive science society, pp 228–235Google Scholar
  2. Amgoud L, Cayrol C (2000) A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. In: Linköping series of articles in computer and information science, vol 5 (http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/epa/cis/ufn-00/01/tcover.html)
  3. Amgoud L, Hameurlain N (2007) An argumentation-based approach for dialogue move selection. In: Maudet N, Parsons S, Rahwan I (eds) Argumentation in multi-agent systems, vol 4766 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 128–141Google Scholar
  4. Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S (2000a) Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on artificial intelligence, Germany, pp 338–342Google Scholar
  5. Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S (2000b) Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on multi-agent systems, pp 31–38Google Scholar
  6. Anscombre J-C (1995) Théorie des topoï. Kimé, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. Anscombre J-C, Ducrot O (1983) L’argumentation dans la langue. Magrada, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashley KD, Rissland EL (2003) Law, learning and representation. Artif Intell 150: 17–58MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TM, McBurney P (2005) A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. J AAMAS Special Issue Argumentation Multi-Agent Syst 11(2): 153–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TM, McBurney P (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Knowl Ration Action Special Sect Synth 152(2): 157–206MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Augusto JC (1998) Defeasible temporal reasoning. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ Nacional del Sur, Argentina. Available at: http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/homes/msch
  12. Baroni P, Giacomin M, Guida G (2000) Extending abstract argumentation systems theory. Artif Intell 120(2): 251–270MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Bench-Capon TM (1989) Deep models, normative reasoning and legal expert systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on AI and law, pp 37–45Google Scholar
  14. Bench-Capon TM (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 13(3): 429–448MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Bench-Capon TM, Prakken H (2006) Argumentation. In: Lodder AR, Oskamp A (eds) Information technology and lawyers: advanced technology in the legal domain, from challenges to daily routine. Springer, Berlin, pp 61–80Google Scholar
  16. Bench-Capon TM, Coenen F, Orton P (1993) Argument-based explanation of the British Nationality Act as a logic program. Comput Law AI 2(1): 53–66Google Scholar
  17. Bentahar J (2005) A unified framework for the pragmatics and semantics of agent communication. Ph.D. Thesis, Laval University, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  18. Bentahar J (2010) An agent communication protocol for resolving conflicts. In: Proceedings of 9th inter- national joint conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems, Toronto, Canada, 10–14 May. IFAAMAS Press (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Bentahar J, Labban J (2009) An argumentation-driven model for flexible and efficient persuasive negotiation. In: Group Decis Negot J. Springer, Berlin. doi:10.1007/s10726-009-9163-0 (online first)
  20. Bentahar J, Moulin B, Chaib-draa B (2004a) Commitment and argument network: a new formalism for agent communication. In: Dignum F (eds) Advances in agent communication, vol 2922 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 146–165Google Scholar
  21. Bentahar J, Moulin B, Meyer J-JCh, Chaib-draa B (2004b) A computational model for conversation policies for agent communication. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA V), vol 3487 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, pp 178–195Google Scholar
  22. Bentahar J, Moulin B, Meyer J-JCh, Chaib-draa B (2004c) A logical model for commitment and argument network for agent communication. In: Proceedings of 3rd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems. ACM Press, pp 792–799Google Scholar
  23. Bentahar J, Maamar Z, Benslimane D, Thiran P (2007a) An argumentation framework for communities of web services. IEEE Intell Syst 22(6): 75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bentahar J, Mbarki M, Moulin B (2007b) Specification and complexity of strategic-based reasoning using argumentation. In: Maudet N, Parsons S, Rahwan I (eds) Argumentation in multi-agent systems, vol 4766 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 142–160Google Scholar
  25. Bentahar J, Moulin B, Meyer J-J Ch, Lespérance Y (2007c) A new logical semantics for agent communication. In: Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA VII), vol 4371 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, pp 151–170Google Scholar
  26. Bentahar J, Mbarki M, Moulin B (2009a) Strategic agent communication: an argumentation-driven approach. In: Baldoni M, Son TC, van Riemsdijk MB, Winikoff M (eds) Declarative agent languages and technologies VI, vol 5397 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 233–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bentahar J, Meyer J-JCh, Wan W (2009b) Model checking communicative agent-based systems. In: Knowledge-based systems, special issue on intelligent software design 22(3):142–159, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  28. Besnard P, Hunter A (2001) A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif Intell 128(1-2): 203–235MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Birnbaum L (1982) Argument molecules: a functional representation of argument structures. In: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp 63–65Google Scholar
  30. Bodanza GA, Simari GR (1995) Argumentacìon on rebatible con bases disyuntivas. In: Proceedings of the Congreso Argentino en Ciencias de la Computation, pp 313–324Google Scholar
  31. Breton P (1996) L’argumentation dans la communication. Collection Repères, La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  32. Brninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003) Predicting the outcome of case-based legal arguments. In: Sartor G (ed) Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial iNTELLIGENCE and law (ICAIL), pp 233-242Google Scholar
  33. Cabrol-Hatimi C (1999) Un Modèle de formalisation des argumentations naturelles basé sur la notion de force persuasive: application à la planification des idées. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Toulouse 1, FranceGoogle Scholar
  34. Cabrol-Hatimi C, Tazi S (2000) APLA: a human-machine cooperative system for arguments selection support. In: Proceedings of COOP’2000Google Scholar
  35. Chesnevar CI (1996) El Problema de la inferencia en sistemas argumentativos: alternativas para su solucìon. M.Sc. Thesis. University Nacional del SurGoogle Scholar
  36. Chesnevar CI, Simari GR (1998) Formalization of defeasible argumentation using labelled deductive systems. In: Proceedings of the IV Congreso Argentino en Ciencias de la Computacìon. Univ Nacional del Comahue, pp 1247–1259Google Scholar
  37. Chesnevar CI, Maguitman AG, Loui RP (2000) Logical models of argument. ACM Comput Surveys 32(4): 337–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Chesnevar CI, McGinnis J, Modgil S, Rahwan I, Reed C, Simari G, South M, Vreeswijk G, Willmott S (2006) Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl Eng Rev 21(4): 293–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Clark P (1991) A model of argumentation and its application in a cooperative expert system. Ph.D. Thesis, Turing Institute, University of Strathclyde, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  40. Delrieux C (1995) Incorporando razonamiento plausible en los sistemas de razonamiento revisable. M.Sc. Thesis. Univ Nacional del SurGoogle Scholar
  41. Dieng R (1989) Generation of topoi from expert systems. In: Raccah PY (ed) CCAI 6:4, GandGoogle Scholar
  42. Ducrot O (1991) Dire ou ne pas Dire, Principes de sémantique linguistique. Herman, Collection Savoir, ParisGoogle Scholar
  43. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77: 321–357MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. Falappa MA (1999). Teorìa de cambio de creencias y sus aplicaciones sobre bases de conocimiento. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. de Cs. de la Computacìon. Univ Nacional del SurGoogle Scholar
  45. Farley A, Freeman K (1995) Toward formalizing dialectical argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference of the society for the study of argumentation, pp 156–165Google Scholar
  46. Flowers M, McGuire R, Birnbaum L (1982) Adversary arguments and the logic of personal attacks. In: Fetzer JH (ed) Strategies for natural language processing, pp 275–294Google Scholar
  47. Fox J, Das S (2000) Safe and sound. In: Artificial intelligence in hazardous applications, AAAI Press, The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  48. Fox J, Krause P, Elvan-Goransson M (1993) Argumentation as a general framework for uncertain reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 9th conference on uncertainty in AI. Morgan-Kaufmann, pp 428–434Google Scholar
  49. Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. ForisGoogle Scholar
  50. Galarreta D, Trousse B (1996) Place de l’argumentation dans la conception d’outils d’assistance à une activité de résolution de problème. In: Raccah 1996, pp 79–103Google Scholar
  51. Garcìa AJ, Simari GR (2004) Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract Logic Program 4(1): 95–138MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Glasspool DW, Fox J, Castillo FD, Monaghan V (2003) Interactive decision support for medical planing. In: Proceedings of artificial intelligence in medicine, 9th conference on artificial intelligence in medicine in Europe (AIME 2003), vol 2780 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp 335–339Google Scholar
  53. Gordon TF (1994) Computational dialectics. In: 1st Workshop on computational dialectics. 12th National conference on artificial intelligence—AAAI‘94Google Scholar
  54. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171: 875–896MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  55. Grasso F (2002) Towards a framework for rhetorical argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 6th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (EDILOG’02), UK, pp 53–60Google Scholar
  56. Grasso F (2003) A mental model for a rhetorical arguer. In: Schmalhofer F, Young R, Katz G (eds) Proceedings of the European cognitive science society conference. LEA, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  57. Greenwood K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2003) Structuring dialogue between the people and their representatives. In: Traunmuller R (ed) Electronic government: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference (EGOV03), Czech Republic, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2739. Springer, pp 55–62Google Scholar
  58. Groarke L, Tindale C, Fisher L (1997) Good reasoning matters!. Oxford University Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  59. Grosz BJ, Sidner CL (1986) Attention, intentions and the structure of Discourse. Comput Linguist 12(3): 175–204Google Scholar
  60. Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Vol 1 and 2. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  61. Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  62. Huhns MN, Bridgeland DM (1991) Multiagent truth maintenance. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-21 6: 1437–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Johnson R (2000) Manifest rationality. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  64. Kakas AC, Miller R, Toni F (1999) An argumentation framework for reasoning about actions and change. In: Proceedings of LPNMR 99, LNCS 1730, pp 78–91Google Scholar
  65. Karacapilidis N, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The hermes system. In: Inf Syst 26(4):259-277Google Scholar
  66. Konolige K, Pollack M (1989) Ascribing plans to agents. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence, USAGoogle Scholar
  67. Konolige K, Pollack M (1993) A representational theory of intention. In: Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference in artificial intelligence (IJCAI), FranceGoogle Scholar
  68. Kraus P, Ambler S, Elvang-Goransson M, Fox J (1995) A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Comput Intell 11(1): 113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lin F, Shoham Y (1989) Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings of 1st international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning, Toronto, pp 245–255Google Scholar
  70. Lodder AR (1997) On structure and naturalness in dialogical models of argumentation. In: Hage JC et al (eds) Legal knowledge-based Systems. JURIX: The 11th conference. GNI, Nijmegen, pp 45–58Google Scholar
  71. Lodder AR (1998) Procedural arguments. In: Oskamp A et al (ed) Legal knowledge-based systems. JURIX: The 10th conference. GNI, Nijmegen, pp 21–32Google Scholar
  72. Lodder AR (1999) DiaLaw—on legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  73. Loui RP (1987) Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Comput Intell 3: 157–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Loui RP, Norman J (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3(3): 159–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Loui RP, Norman J, Alteper J, Pinckard D, Craven D, Lindsay J, Foltz M (1997) Progress on Room 5. A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 207–214Google Scholar
  76. MacKenzie J (1979) Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J Phil Logic 8: 117–133MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  77. MacKenzie J (1981) The dialectics of logic. Logique et Analyse 94: 159–177MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  78. Moeshler J (1985) Argumentation et conversation: eléments pour une analyse pragmatique du discours. Hatier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  79. Mommers L (2002) Applied legal epistemology. Ph.D. Thesis. Leiden University. The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  80. Moulin B, Irandoust H, Bélanger M, Desbordes G (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artif Intell Rev 17: 169–222MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. O’Keefe D (1977) Two concepts of argument. J Am Forensic Soc 13: 121–128Google Scholar
  82. O’Keefe DJ (2002) Persuasion: theory and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  83. Parsons S, Jennings NR (1996) Negotiation through argumentation-a preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference On multi agent systems, pp 267–274Google Scholar
  84. Parsons S, Sierra C, Jennings N (1998) Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J Logic Comput 8(3): 261–292MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  85. Parsons S, Wooldridge M, Amgoud L (2002) An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 02), Italy, pp 394–401Google Scholar
  86. Parsons S, Wooldridge M, Amgoud L (2003) On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 03), Australia, pp 616–623Google Scholar
  87. Pasquier P, Rahwan I, Dignum F, Sonenberg L (2006) Argumentation and persuasion in the cognitive coherence theory. In: Dunne P, Bench-Capon T (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA). IOS Press, pp 223–234Google Scholar
  88. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame Press, University of Notre dame, LondonGoogle Scholar
  89. Pollock JL (1974) Knowledge and justification. Princeton University press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  90. Pollock JL (1991) A theory of defeasible reasoning. In: Int J Intell Syst. Wiley, pp 33–54Google Scholar
  91. Pollock JL (1992) How to reason defeasibly? Artif Intell 57: 1–42MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  92. Pollock JL (1994) Justification and defeat. Artif Intell 67: 377–407MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  93. Pollock JL (1995) Cognitive carpentry: a blueprint for how to build a person. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  94. Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4: 331–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non Class Logics 7(1): 25–75MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  96. Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6: 231–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Prakken H, Vreeswijk G (2002) Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabby DM, Guenthner F (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic, vol 4, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 219–318Google Scholar
  98. Raccah, P-Y (eds) (1996) Topoï et gestion des connaissances. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  99. Rahwan I, McBurney P (2007) Guest editors’ introduction: argumentation technology. IEEE Intell Syst 22(6): 21–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rahwan I, Ramchurn SD, Jennings NR, McBurney P, Parsons S, Sonenberg L (2003) Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowl Eng Rev 18(4): 343–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rahwan I, Zablith F, Reed C (2007) Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artif Intell 171(10–15): 897–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Ramchurn SD, Sierra C, Godo L, Jennings NR (2007) Negotiating using rewards. Artif Intell 171(10–15): 805–837MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  103. Reed C, Norman TJ (2003) A roadmap of research in argument and computation. In: Reed C, Norman TJ (eds) Argumentation machines—new frontiers in argument and computation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  104. Reed C, Rowe G (2001) Araucaria: software for puzzles in argument diagramming and XML. Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  105. Reed C, Walton D (2003) Argumentation schemes in argument-as-process and argument-as-product. In: Proceedings of the conference celebrating informal Logic @25, WindsorGoogle Scholar
  106. Rescher N (1977) Dialectics, a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  107. Rissland E, Skalak D, Friedman M (1993) Bankxx: A program to generate argument through case-based search. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on AI an law, Amsterdam, pp 117–124Google Scholar
  108. Ryan E (1992) Aristotle and the tradition of rhetorical argumentation. Argument J 6(3): 291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Schroeder M (1999) An efficient argumentation framework for negotiating autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the 9th European workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world (MAAMAW’99), Valencia, pp 140–149Google Scholar
  110. Schroeder M (2000) Towards a visualization of arguing agents. To appear in J Future Gener Comput Syst, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  111. Sierra C, Jennings NR, Noriega P, Parsons S (1998) A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Singh MP, Rao A, Wooldridge M (eds) Intelligent agents IV. LNAI 1365. Springer, Berlin, pp 177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Sillince JAA (1994) Multi-agent conflict resolution: a computational framework for an intelligent argumentation program. Know Based Syst 7(2): 75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Simari GR (1989) A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Ph.D. Thesis, Washington University. USAGoogle Scholar
  114. Simari GR, Garcìa AJ (1995) A knowledge representation language for defeasible argumentation. In: CLEI’95, Canela, pp 661–672Google Scholar
  115. Simari GR, Loui RP (1992) A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif Intell 53: 125–157CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  116. Simari GR, Chesnevar CI, Garcìa AJ (1994) The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation. In: Anales de la XIV Conferencia Internacional de la Sociedad Chilena para Ciencias de la Computacìon. Univ de Concepcìon, Chile, pp 270–281Google Scholar
  117. Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J (1999) A survey of argumentation structures for intelligent decision support. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference of the international society for decision support systemsGoogle Scholar
  118. Sycara KP (1990) Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory Decis 28: 203–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Tindale C (1999) Acts of arguing, a rhetorical model of argument. State University Press of New York, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  120. Tohmé F (1997) Negotiation and defeasible reasons for choice. In: Proceedings of the Stanford spring symposium On qualitative preferences in deliberation and practical reasoning, pp 95–102Google Scholar
  121. Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  122. Vahidov R, Elrod R (1999) Incorporating critique and argumentation in DSS. Decis Support Syst 26:249–258, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  123. Verheij B (1996) Rules, reasons and arguments: formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Ph.D. Thesis, Maastricht University, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  124. Verheij B (1998) Argue! An implemented system for computer-mediated defeasible argumentation. In: proceedings of the 10th Netherlands/Belgium conference on artificial intelligence, CWI, Amsterdam, pp 57–66Google Scholar
  125. Vreeswijk GA (1993) Studies in defeasible argumentation. Ph.D. Thesis, Vrije University, HollandGoogle Scholar
  126. Vreeswijk GA (1995) IACAS: an implementation of Chisholm’s principles of knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German workshop on nonmonotonic reasoning. Delft University of Technology, pp 225–234Google Scholar
  127. Vreeswijk GA (1997) Abstract argumentation systems. Artif Intell 90(1–2): 225–279MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  128. Walton DN (1996) Argument structure: a pragmatic theory. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  129. Walton DN, Krabbe ECW (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  130. Willmott S, Vreeswijk G, South M, Chesnevar C, Simari G, McGinis J, Rahwan I, Reed C, Modgil S (2006) Towards an argument interchange format for multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, vol 4766 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, pp 17–34Google Scholar
  131. Ye LR (1995) The value of explanation in expert systems for auditing: an experimental investigation. Expert Syst Appl 9(4): 543–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamal Bentahar
    • 1
  • Bernard Moulin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Micheline Bélanger
    • 4
  1. 1.Concordia Institute for Information Systems EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Software EngineeringLaval UniversitySte FoyCanada
  3. 3.Research Center on GeomaticsLaval UniversitySte FoyCanada
  4. 4.Defence Research and Development CanadaValcartierCanada

Personalised recommendations