Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarado S, Dyer M (1985) Analogy recognition and comprehension in editorials. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference of the cognitive science society, pp 228–235

  • 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)

  • 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 128–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S (2000a) Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on artificial intelligence, Germany, pp 338–342

  • Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S (2000b) Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on multi-agent systems, pp 31–38

  • Anscombre J-C (1995) Théorie des topoï. Kimé, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombre J-C, Ducrot O (1983) L’argumentation dans la langue. Magrada, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley KD, Rissland EL (2003) Law, learning and representation. Artif Intell 150: 17–58

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 153–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TM, McBurney P (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Knowl Ration Action Special Sect Synth 152(2): 157–206

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Augusto JC (1998) Defeasible temporal reasoning. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ Nacional del Sur, Argentina. Available at: http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/homes/msch

  • Baroni P, Giacomin M, Guida G (2000) Extending abstract argumentation systems theory. Artif Intell 120(2): 251–270

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon TM (1989) Deep models, normative reasoning and legal expert systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on AI and law, pp 37–45

  • Bench-Capon TM (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 13(3): 429–448

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 61–80

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 53–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentahar J (2005) A unified framework for the pragmatics and semantics of agent communication. Ph.D. Thesis, Laval University, Québec

  • 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)

  • 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)

  • 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 146–165

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 178–195

  • 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 792–799

  • Bentahar J, Maamar Z, Benslimane D, Thiran P (2007a) An argumentation framework for communities of web services. IEEE Intell Syst 22(6): 75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 142–160

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 151–170

  • 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 233–250

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Elsevier

  • Besnard P, Hunter A (2001) A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif Intell 128(1-2): 203–235

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum L (1982) Argument molecules: a functional representation of argument structures. In: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp 63–65

  • Bodanza GA, Simari GR (1995) Argumentacìon on rebatible con bases disyuntivas. In: Proceedings of the Congreso Argentino en Ciencias de la Computation, pp 313–324

  • Breton P (1996) L’argumentation dans la communication. Collection Repères, La Découverte, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 233-242

  • 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, France

  • Cabrol-Hatimi C, Tazi S (2000) APLA: a human-machine cooperative system for arguments selection support. In: Proceedings of COOP’2000

  • Chesnevar CI (1996) El Problema de la inferencia en sistemas argumentativos: alternativas para su solucìon. M.Sc. Thesis. University Nacional del Sur

  • 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 1247–1259

  • Chesnevar CI, Maguitman AG, Loui RP (2000) Logical models of argument. ACM Comput Surveys 32(4): 337–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 293–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark P (1991) A model of argumentation and its application in a cooperative expert system. Ph.D. Thesis, Turing Institute, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

  • Delrieux C (1995) Incorporando razonamiento plausible en los sistemas de razonamiento revisable. M.Sc. Thesis. Univ Nacional del Sur

  • Dieng R (1989) Generation of topoi from expert systems. In: Raccah PY (ed) CCAI 6:4, Gand

  • Ducrot O (1991) Dire ou ne pas Dire, Principes de sémantique linguistique. Herman, Collection Savoir, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77: 321–357

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Sur

  • 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 156–165

  • 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 275–294

  • Fox J, Das S (2000) Safe and sound. In: Artificial intelligence in hazardous applications, AAAI Press, The MIT Press

  • 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 428–434

  • Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Foris

  • 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 79–103

  • Garcìa AJ, Simari GR (2004) Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract Logic Program 4(1): 95–138

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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 335–339

  • Gordon TF (1994) Computational dialectics. In: 1st Workshop on computational dialectics. 12th National conference on artificial intelligence—AAAI‘94

  • Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171: 875–896

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 53–60

  • 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, Germany

  • 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 55–62

  • Groarke L, Tindale C, Fisher L (1997) Good reasoning matters!. Oxford University Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz BJ, Sidner CL (1986) Attention, intentions and the structure of Discourse. Comput Linguist 12(3): 175–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Vol 1 and 2. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Huhns MN, Bridgeland DM (1991) Multiagent truth maintenance. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-21 6: 1437–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R (2000) Manifest rationality. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakas AC, Miller R, Toni F (1999) An argumentation framework for reasoning about actions and change. In: Proceedings of LPNMR 99, LNCS 1730, pp 78–91

  • Karacapilidis N, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The hermes system. In: Inf Syst 26(4):259-277

  • Konolige K, Pollack M (1989) Ascribing plans to agents. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence, USA

  • Konolige K, Pollack M (1993) A representational theory of intention. In: Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference in artificial intelligence (IJCAI), France

  • Kraus P, Ambler S, Elvang-Goransson M, Fox J (1995) A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Comput Intell 11(1): 113–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 245–255

  • 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 45–58

  • Lodder AR (1998) Procedural arguments. In: Oskamp A et al (ed) Legal knowledge-based systems. JURIX: The 10th conference. GNI, Nijmegen, pp 21–32

  • Lodder AR (1999) DiaLaw—on legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui RP (1987) Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Comput Intell 3: 157–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui RP, Norman J (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3(3): 159–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 207–214

  • MacKenzie J (1979) Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J Phil Logic 8: 117–133

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie J (1981) The dialectics of logic. Logique et Analyse 94: 159–177

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Moeshler J (1985) Argumentation et conversation: eléments pour une analyse pragmatique du discours. Hatier, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Mommers L (2002) Applied legal epistemology. Ph.D. Thesis. Leiden University. The Netherlands

  • Moulin B, Irandoust H, Bélanger M, Desbordes G (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artif Intell Rev 17: 169–222

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe D (1977) Two concepts of argument. J Am Forensic Soc 13: 121–128

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe DJ (2002) Persuasion: theory and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons S, Jennings NR (1996) Negotiation through argumentation-a preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference On multi agent systems, pp 267–274

  • Parsons S, Sierra C, Jennings N (1998) Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J Logic Comput 8(3): 261–292

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 394–401

  • 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 616–623

  • 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 223–234

  • Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame Press, University of Notre dame, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock JL (1974) Knowledge and justification. Princeton University press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock JL (1991) A theory of defeasible reasoning. In: Int J Intell Syst. Wiley, pp 33–54

  • Pollock JL (1992) How to reason defeasibly? Artif Intell 57: 1–42

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock JL (1994) Justification and defeat. Artif Intell 67: 377–407

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock JL (1995) Cognitive carpentry: a blueprint for how to build a person. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4: 331–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non Class Logics 7(1): 25–75

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6: 231–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 219–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Raccah, P-Y (eds) (1996) Topoï et gestion des connaissances. Masson, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan I, McBurney P (2007) Guest editors’ introduction: argumentation technology. IEEE Intell Syst 22(6): 21–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan I, Ramchurn SD, Jennings NR, McBurney P, Parsons S, Sonenberg L (2003) Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowl Eng Rev 18(4): 343–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan I, Zablith F, Reed C (2007) Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artif Intell 171(10–15): 897–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramchurn SD, Sierra C, Godo L, Jennings NR (2007) Negotiating using rewards. Artif Intell 171(10–15): 805–837

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed C, Rowe G (2001) Araucaria: software for puzzles in argument diagramming and XML. Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee, Scotland

  • Reed C, Walton D (2003) Argumentation schemes in argument-as-process and argument-as-product. In: Proceedings of the conference celebrating informal Logic @25, Windsor

  • Rescher N (1977) Dialectics, a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 117–124

  • Ryan E (1992) Aristotle and the tradition of rhetorical argumentation. Argument J 6(3): 291–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 140–149

  • Schroeder M (2000) Towards a visualization of arguing agents. To appear in J Future Gener Comput Syst, Elsevier

  • 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 177–192

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sillince JAA (1994) Multi-agent conflict resolution: a computational framework for an intelligent argumentation program. Know Based Syst 7(2): 75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simari GR (1989) A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Ph.D. Thesis, Washington University. USA

  • Simari GR, Garcìa AJ (1995) A knowledge representation language for defeasible argumentation. In: CLEI’95, Canela, pp 661–672

  • Simari GR, Loui RP (1992) A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif Intell 53: 125–157

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 270–281

  • 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 systems

  • Sycara KP (1990) Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory Decis 28: 203–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tindale C (1999) Acts of arguing, a rhetorical model of argument. State University Press of New York, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 95–102

  • Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahidov R, Elrod R (1999) Incorporating critique and argumentation in DSS. Decis Support Syst 26:249–258, Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij B (1996) Rules, reasons and arguments: formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Ph.D. Thesis, Maastricht University, Maastricht

  • 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 57–66

  • Vreeswijk GA (1993) Studies in defeasible argumentation. Ph.D. Thesis, Vrije University, Holland

  • 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 225–234

  • Vreeswijk GA (1997) Abstract argumentation systems. Artif Intell 90(1–2): 225–279

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1996) Argument structure: a pragmatic theory. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN, Krabbe ECW (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 17–34

  • Ye LR (1995) The value of explanation in expert systems for auditing: an experimental investigation. Expert Syst Appl 9(4): 543–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering, Concordia University, 1515 Ste-Catherine Street West, EV7.640, Montreal, QC, H3G 2W1, Canada

    Jamal Bentahar

  2. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Laval University, Ste Foy, QC, G1K 7P4, Canada

    Bernard Moulin

  3. Research Center on Geomatics, Laval University, Ste Foy, QC, Canada

    Bernard Moulin

  4. Defence Research and Development Canada, Valcartier, QC, G3J 1X5, Canada

    Micheline Bélanger

Authors
  1. Jamal Bentahar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernard Moulin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Micheline Bélanger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamal Bentahar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bentahar, J., Moulin, B. & Bélanger, M. A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation. Artif Intell Rev 33, 211–259 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-010-9154-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-010-9154-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation