Asking the Right Question: Forcing Commitment in Examination Dialogues

Authors:
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon;Sylvie Doutre;Paul E. Dunne
Affiliations:
Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, U.K.;IRIT, University of Toulouse 1, France;Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, U.K.
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008
Year:
2008

Citing 11
Cited 0

On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories

Theoretical Computer Science
Coherence in finite argument systems

Artificial Intelligence
Audiences in argumentation frameworks

Artificial Intelligence
Computing ideal sceptical argumentation

Artificial Intelligence
Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems

Artificial Intelligence
Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
Value-Based Argumentation for Democratic Decision Support

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Value Based Argumentation in Hierarchical Argumentation Frameworks

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Discovering inconsistency through examination dialogues

IJCAI'05 Proceedings of the 19th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

We introduce a new semantics for value-based argumentation frameworks (VAFs) --the uncontested semantics --whose principal motivation is as a mechanism with which to refine the nature of objective acceptance with respect to a given audience. The objectively accepted arguments of a VAF w.r.t. an audience R, are those considered justified by all subscribing to the audience, R, regardless of the specific value orderings that individuals may hold. In particular we examine how the concept of uncontested acceptance may be used in examination dialogues. The proposed semantics bear some aspects in common with the recently proposed ideal semantics for standard --i.e. value--free --argumentation frameworks. In this paper we consider applications of the new semantics to a specific “real” example and examine its relationship to the ideal semantics as well as analysing some basic complexity-theoretic issues.