G.Brewka. Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2):257--282, 2001.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... or remain the same) Increasing trust increases the opponent s tendency to accept subsequent proposals from the proponent and so may be This takes a utility maximising approach to defining strength which departs from the definitions taken in logic based argumentation in terms of defeasibility [Brewka, 2001; Prakken and Vreeswijk, 2002] important in the long run (see sections 5 and 6) This is particularly important if future encounters have high payoffs [Axelrod, 1984] 3. its impact on the opponent s evaluation function (its perceived payoffs) That is, how much it is likely to alter the ....

G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2):257--282, 2001.

....argumentative dialogue systems. 1. INTRODUCTION The procedural aspects of legal argument have become an important topic of AI Law research. Several models have been developed in the form of dialogue games, regulating the use of argumentative speech acts and de ning the outcome of a dispute [3, 5, 10, 1, 8, 14, 2]; cf. also [16] Although these contributions have been very valuable, further research is needed. Firstly, in the current models the judge s role, if modelled at all, is limited to the simple activity of determining the truth of the parties claims. Yet in actual legal procedures judges have a ....

....claims, and for moving arguments. The game will also allow for conceding and retracting arguments and for questioning the legality of moves. The move that concedes an argument is taken from [3] Its e ect is to give up the possibility of counterargument. The illegal move is adapted from [8] and [2]. Next a third category of speech acts must be introduced besides attacks and surrenders, viz. determiners. Such acts, to be played only by the judge, have no replies but are yet not surrenders; instead they decide a certain issue. The e ect of determiners on the dialogical status of their target ....

G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2001. To appear.

....theorists only have the logical and procedural layer, the AI Law models have added the dialectical layer in between. In fact, clarifying the interplay between the dialectical and the procedural layer is not a trivial matter, and is the subject of ongoing logical research. See e.g. Brewka, 2001, Prakken, 2000, Prakken, 2001d ] 12 2.4 The heuristic layer This layer (which addresses much of what is traditionally called rhetoric ) is the most diverse one. In fact, heuristics play a role at any aspect of the other three levels: they say which premises to use, which arguments to ....

G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11:257-282, 2001.

....this is di erent. For instance, argumentation has been used as a component of negotiation protocols, where arguments for an o er should persuade the other party to accept the o er [16, 20] Argumentation is also part of some recent formal models and computer systems for dispute mediation [10, 11, 6], and it has been used in computer programs for intelligent tutoring: for instance, in a system (Belvedere) that teaches scienti c reasoning [27] and in systems that teach argumentation skills to law students, e.g. 1] s CATO system and [28] s ARGUE system. Now in many applications of these types, ....

G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2000. To appear.

....source of inspiration for the present research was Tom Gordon s model of civil pleading in anglo american law [4] cf. also [6] Gordon presents a particular protocol rather than a framework. The same holds for a recent proposal in the context of multi agent negotiation systems [1] Finally, [3] shows how protocols for multiparty disputes can be formalised in situation calculus. Brewka focuses less on dialectical and relevance aspects but more on describing the current state of a dispute and how it changes. His approach paves the way for, for instance, formal veri cation of consistency ....

G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2000. To appear.

No context found.

G.Brewka. Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2):257--282, 2001.

No context found.

Brewka, Gerhard. (2001a). Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of logic and computation, 11(2), 257--282. Brewka, Gerhard. 2001b (Aug.). On the relation between defeasible logic and well-founded semantics. Proceedings lpnmr 2001.

No context found.

G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2):257--282, 2001.

No context found.

Brewka, G.: Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. J. of Logic and Computation 11 (2001) 257--282

No context found.

G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation process based on situation calculus. In Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2), pp. 257-282, 2001.

No context found.

G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation based on situation calculus. Journal of logic and computation, 11(2), 2001.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC