The Zeno argumentation framework
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Chance Discovery Using Dialectical Argumentation
Proceedings of the Joint JSAI 2001 Workshop on New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Dialogues about the burden of proof
ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Formal systems for persuasion dialogue
The Knowledge Engineering Review
The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue: Research Articles
International Journal of Intelligent Systems - Computational Models of Natural Argumentation
How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Argumentation and standards of proof
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
Presumptions and Burdens of Proof
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference
Argumentation-Based multi-agent dialogues for deliberation
ArgMAS'05 Proceedings of the Second international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Types of Dialogue and Burdens of Proof
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The literature in argumentation and artificial intelligence has distinguished five types of burden of proof in persuasion dialogs, but there appears to have been no serious investigation so far on how burdens of proof should be modeled in deliberation dialogs. The work in this paper is directed toward filling that gap by extending existing formal models of deliberation dialog to analyze four examples of deliberation dialog where burden of proof is at issue or poses an interesting problem. The examples are used to show (1) that the eight stages in the formal model of Hitchcock, McBurney and Parsons (2007) need to be divided into three more general stages, an opening stage, an argumentation stage and a closing stage, (2) that deliberation dialog shifts to persuasion dialog during the argumentation stage, and (3) that burden of proof is only operative during the argumentation stage. What is shown in general is that deliberation is, in the typical type of case, a mixed dialog in which there is a shift to persuasion dialog in the middle.