Process and Policy: Resource‐Bounded NonDemonstrative Reasoning

Loui, Ronald P.

doi:10.1111/0824-7935.00055

Cited by 82 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our BN example this means that the turn shifts to the opponent (proponent) as soon as the posterior probability of the dialogue topic is above (below) its proof standard. This rule was initially proposed by Loui (1998) for dialogues over argumentation frameworks, in combination with the protocol rule that each utterance must improve the speaker's position. His rationale for the turntaking rule was that thus effectiveness is promoted since no resources are wasted while fairness is promoted since as soon as a participant is losing, she is given the opportunity to improve her position.…”

Section: Some Design Principles For Systems For Theory-building Persumentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation Without Arguments

Prakken

2011

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A well-known ambiguity in the term 'argument' is that of argument as an inferential structure and argument as a kind of dialogue. In the first sense, an argument is a structure with a conclusion supported by one or more grounds, which may or may not be supported by further grounds. Rules for the construction and criteria for the quality of arguments in this sense are a matter of logic. In the second sense, arguments have been studied as a form of dialogical interaction, in which human or artificial agents aim to resolve a conflict of opinion by verbal means. Rules for conducting such dialogues and criteria for their quality are part of dialogue theory. Usually, formal accounts of argumentation dialogues in logic and artificial intelligence presuppose an argument-based logic. That is, the ways in which dialogue participants support and attack claims are modelled as the construction of explicit arguments and counterarguments (in the inferential sense). However, in this paper formal models of argumentation dialogues are discussed that do not presuppose arguments as inferential structures. The motivation for such models is that there are forms of inference that are not most naturally cast in the form of arguments (such as abduction, statistical reasoning and coherence-based reasoning) but that can still be the subject of argumentative dialogue. Some recent work in artificial intelligence is discussed which embeds non-argumentative inference in an argumentative dialogue system, and some general observations are drawn from this discussion.

show abstract

Section: Some Design Principles For Systems For Theory-building Persumentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation Without Arguments

Prakken

2011

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5. Furthermore, consider that what gives visualization high utility in an argumentation context is that argumentation is inherently a process (Loui, 1998) rather than an instant, static picture. Users can enhance their interaction in this explicit and visual process by rendering visualization of the algorithmic proofs of acceptability of an argument.…”

Section: Linking the Component To Argument Structuring And Visualizatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an argument interchange format

Chesñevar

McGinnis

Modgil

et al. 2006

The Knowledge Engineering Review

222

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theory of argumentation is a rich, interdisciplinary area of research straddling the fields of artificial intelligence, philosophy, communication studies, linguistics and psychology. In the last few years, significant progress has been made in understanding the theoretical properties of different argumentation logics. However, one major barrier to the development and practical deployment of argumentation systems is the lack of a shared, agreed notation or 'interchange format' for argumentation and arguments. In this paper, we describe a draft specification for an argument interchange format (AIF) intended for representation and exchange of data between various argumentation tools and agent-based applications. It represents a consensus 'abstract model' established by researchers across fields of argumentation, artificial intelligence and multi-agent systems 1 . In its current form, this specification is intended as a starting point for further discussion and elaboration by the community, rather than an attempt at a definitive, all-encompassing model. However, to demonstrate proof of concept, a use case scenario is briefly described. Moreover, three concrete realizations or 'reifications' of the abstract model are illustrated.

show abstract

“…This is partly inspired by the analogous idea of procedural rationality, defended by e.g. Toulmin (1958); Rescher (1977) and Loui (1998) (who interestingly were in turn inspired by the analogy with legal procedures).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A formal model of adjudication dialogues

Prakken

2008

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a formal dialogue game for adjudication dialogues. Existing AI & law models of legal dialogues and argumentation-theoretic models of persuasion are extended with a neutral third party, to give a more realistic account of the adjudicator's role in legal procedures. The main feature of the model is a division into a pleadings phase, where the adversaries plea their case and the adjudicator has a largely mediating role, and a decision phase, where the adjudicator decides the dispute on the basis of the claims, arguments and evidence put forward in the pleadings phase. The model allows for explicit decisions on admissibility of evidence and burden of proof by the adjudicator in the pleadings phase. Adjudication is modelled as putting forward arguments, in particular undercutting and priority arguments, in the decision phase. The model reconciles logical aspects of burden of proof induced by the defeasible nature of arguments with dialogical aspects of burden of proof as something that can be allocated by explicit decisions on legal grounds.

show abstract

Process and Policy: Resource‐Bounded NonDemonstrative Reasoning

Cited by 82 publications

References 13 publications

Argumentation Without Arguments

Argumentation Without Arguments

Towards an argument interchange format

A formal model of adjudication dialogues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About