Using case-based reasoning for argumentation with multiple viewpoints

Karacapilidis, Nikos; Trousse, Brigitte; Papadias, Dimitris

doi:10.1007/3-540-63233-6_523

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this kind of frameworks, the agents can interact either directly or centralise the interaction into a mediator agent (MA). A preliminary example of the former type was the collaborative decision maker HERMES, which integrated CBR and argumentative based reasoning into its Argument Builder Tool (Karacapilidis et al, 1997(Karacapilidis et al, , 2001. The system helps a group of human agents to argue in supporting or attacking alternative positions in a decision process.…”

Section: Argument Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Applying CBR to manage argumentation in MAS

Heras

Julián

Botti

2010

IJRIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of argumentation theories and techniques in multi-agent systems has become a prolific area of research. Argumentation allows agents to harmonize two types of disagreement situations: internal, when the acquisition of new information (e.g. about the environment or about other agents) produces incoherences in the agents' mental state; and external, when agents that have different positions about a topic engage in a discussion. The focus of this paper is on the latter type of disagreement situations. In those settings, agents must be able to generate, select and send arguments to other agents that will evaluate them in their turn. An efficient way for agents to manage these argumentation abilities is by using case-based reasoning, which has been successfully applied to argumentation from its earliest beginnings. This reasoning methodology also allows agents to learn from their experiences and therefore, to improve their argumentation skills. This paper analyses the advantages of applying case-based reasoning to manage arguments in multi-agent systems dialogues, identifies open issues and proposes new ideas to tackle them.

show abstract

Section: Argument Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Applying CBR to manage argumentation in MAS

Heras

Julián

Botti

2010

IJRIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar approach to perspectives and values was adopted in Karacapilidis, Trousse and Papadias (1997), where a broader discussion domain is associated with every viewpoint of a case. In that approach, however, the association is in a sense &&top down'' from the more general topics to their subtopics.…”

Section: Use Of Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition

Grasso¹,

Cawsey²,

Jones³

2000

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This model was implemented in the Argument Builder Tool (ABT) of the multi-agent framework for collaborative deliberation HERMES (Karacapilidis and Papadias, 2001), (Karacapilidis et al, 1997). This is an Argumentation-based Decision Support System (ADSS) that helps a group of users (human agents) to build sound arguments to defend their positions in favour or against other alternative positions in a discussion.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Infrastructure for Argumentative Agents

Jordán

Heras

Valero

et al. 2014

Computational Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-Agent Systems are suitable to provide a framework that allows to perform collaborative processes in a social context. Furthermore, argumentation is a natural way of reaching agreements between several parties. However, it is difficult to find infrastructures of argumentation offering support for agent societies and their social context. Offering support for agent societies allows to represent more realistic environments to have argumentation dialogues. We propose an infrastructure to develop and execute argumentative agents in an open MAS. It offers tools to develop agents with argumentation capabilities. It also offers support for agent societies and their social context. The infrastructure is publicly available. Also, it has been implemented in an application scenario where argumentative agents try to reach an agreement about the best solution to solve a problem reported to the system.

show abstract

Using case-based reasoning for argumentation with multiple viewpoints

Cited by 16 publications

References 8 publications

Applying CBR to manage argumentation in MAS

Applying CBR to manage argumentation in MAS

Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition

An Infrastructure for Argumentative Agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About