Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation System Allowing Suspend/Resume of an Argumentation Line

  • Conference paper
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6614))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper discusses an argumentation system that treats argumentation dynamically. We previously proposed a model for dynamic treatment of argumentation in which all lines of argumentation are executed in succession, with the change of the agent’s knowledge base. This system was designed for grasping the behaviour of actual argumentation, but it has several limitations. In this paper, we propose an extended system in which these points are revised so that the model can more precisely simulate actual argumentation. In addition, we provide a simpler algorithm for judgement of given argumentation, which can be applied to make a strategy to win.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: ECAI 2000, pp. 338–342 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Repairing preference-based argumentation frameworks. In: IJCAI 2009, pp. 665–670 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171, 619–641 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Cayrol, C., de St-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Shiex, M.-C.: Revision of an argumentation system. In: KR 2008, pp. 124–134 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149(2), 221–250 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Falappa, M., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G.R.: Explanations, belief revision and defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 141(1-2), 1–28 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and practice of logic programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. García, A., Chesevar, C., Rotstein, N., Simari, G.: An abstract presentation of dialectical explanations in defeasible argumentation. In: ArgNMR 2007, pp. 17–32 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Joseph, S., Prakken, H.: Coherence-driven argumentation to norm consensus. In: ICAIL 2009, pp. 58–67 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hamblin, C.: Fallacies. Methuen (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104(1-2), 1–69 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Lucero, M.J.G., Chesñever, C.I., Simari, G.R.: On the accrual of arguments in defeasible logic programming. In: IJCAI 2009, pp. 804–809 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9-10), 901–1040 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Moguillansky, M.O., et al.: Argument theory change applied to defeasible logic programming. In: AAAI 2008, pp. 132–137 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Prakken, H.: Combining skeptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: COMMA 2006, pp. 311–322 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Paglieri, F., Castelfranchi, C.: Revising beliefs through arguments: Bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 78–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Okuno, K., Takahashi, K.: Argumentation with a revision of knowledge base. In: EUMAS 2008, CD-ROM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Okuno, K., Takahashi, K.: Argumentation system with changes of an agent’s knowledge base. In: IJCAI 2009, pp. 226–232 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science&Technology, Kwansei Gakuin University, 2-1, Gakuen, Sanda, 669-1337, Japan

    Kenichi Okuno & Kazuko Takahashi

Authors
  1. Kenichi Okuno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kazuko Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, King’s College London, Strand Building S6.04, The Strand, WC2R 2LS, London, UK

    Peter McBurney

  2. Masdar Institute, P.O. Box 54224, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Iyad Rahwan

  3. Department of Computer Science, Graduate Center, City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, 10016, New York, NY, USA

    Simon Parsons

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Okuno, K., Takahashi, K. (2011). Argumentation System Allowing Suspend/Resume of an Argumentation Line. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6614. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21939-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21940-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation