McBurney, P. and S. Parsons (2000). Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In UAI 16. Stanford.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

No context found.

McBurney, P. and S. Parsons (2000). Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In UAI 16. Stanford.

No context found.

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In UAI 16. Stanford, 2000.

No context found.

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2000.

No context found.

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2000.

....seeking dialogue as in [13] and this case is thus dealt with below. 5.2 Inquiry In an inquiry dialogue, the participants collaborate to answer some question whose answer is not known to either. There are a number of ways in which one might construct an inquiry dialogue (for example see [12]) Here we present one simple possibility. We assume that two agents A and B have already agreed to engage in an inquiry about some proposition p by some control dialogue as suggested in [13] and from this point can adopt the following protocol I: 1. A asserts q p for some q or U . 2. B ....

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scienti c reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Arti cial Intelligence, Stanford, CA, USA, 2000. UAI.

....formalism presented for information seeking dialogues in [34] for instance, does not satisfy this requirement. For a recent discussion of the problems of semantic veri cation of agent communication languages, see [58] A similar electronic space for scienti c dialogues is called an Agora in [35]. Both may be viewed as examples of Institutions [40] in [38] we can summarize the di erent types of rules of such games at an abstract level as follows: Commencement Rules: Rules which de ne the circumstances under which the dialogue begins. Locution Rules: Rules which specify the nature of ....

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scienti c reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Arti cial Intelligence (UAI-2000), pages 371-379, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000. Morgan Kaufmann.

....agreement on the quantification of uncertainty difficult. Argumentation formalisms have been proposed for the qualitative representation of uncertainty in these circumstances [8] and have found application in intelligent systems, for example in medical and safety analysis domains [2, 3] In [10], we proposed a formalism using dialectical argumentation for representing and resolving the arguments for and against a claim in a given domain. This representation was grounded in specific philosophies of rational human discourse and was centered on an electronic space for presentation of ....

....of our framework. Section 4 presents an example and Section 5 compares our approach to related work and discusses possible future research. 2 Agoras and Scenarios 2. 1 Agoras In this section we briefly summarize the Agora framework for the qualitative representation of uncertainty presented in [10, 12]. In this framework, arguments for and against claims are articulated by participants in an electronic space, called an Agora. Claims are expressed as formulae in a propositional language, typically denoted by lower case Greek letters. By means of defined locutions, participants in the Agora can ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-

....[4, 61] the formalism presented here could readily be adapted for deliberative dialogues between independent software agents. Acknowledgments This article extends work presented at the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 00) held at Stanford, CA, in June 2000 [54], and we are grateful to the anonymous UAI reviewers for their comments. We also thank David Hitchcock for his detailed and perceptive reading of that version. Our results were also presented to the Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, in February 2001, and we thank the seminar ....

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-

....in Section 3, after first reviewing the application of argumentation and dialogue games in artificial intelligence in Section 2. In earlier work, we presented a similar dialectical argumentation structure for dialogues over risk in environmental domains, which we which termed a Risk Agora [22] . Accordingly, we call the formalism presented in this paper a Discovery Agora. Section 4 briefly discusses the use of an evolutionary computational architecture to support automated dialogues in this Agora, and Section 5 presents an example. Section 6 concludes the paper with a discussion of ....

....has been used to develop systems for debates or dialogues where divergent viewpoints may be represented. This field has become known as Computational Dialectics [31] and systems have been proposed for debates over legal issues [11] urban planning decisions [12] and scientific questions [22] . Moreover, similar dialectical approaches have been proposed for automated dialogues between intelligent software agents [28; 1] and for the automated design of software components [33] A review of some applications of argumentation in Artificial Intelligence is contained in [5] In this ....

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-

....or other meaning outside the dialogue context, and in particular, they do not indicate that the speaker necessarily believes the claim. It is standard in this work for dialogue systems to incorporate a public set of 4 A similar electronic space for scientific dialogues is called an Agora in [35]. Both may be viewed as examples of Institutions [40] 5 In some multi agent system applications of dialogue games, e.g. 1] rationality conditions are imposed on utterances, for example allowing agents to assert statements only when they themselves have a prior argument or proof from their own ....

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-

.... consequences, would be to consider the selection of the argumentation schemes to be itself a topic of practical reasoning: in order to determine what is to be done, one should also determine which argumentation schemes can be used under the circumstances of the situation at hand (cf. also McBurney Parsons 2000). For instance, the maximal expected utility approach to decisionmaking is sometimes considered inappropriate for modeling risk averse decision making: an investment of 1000 Euros that gives a 1 chance on a return of a million Euros is supported by the maximal expected utility approach, but may ....

....at most one choice point for the other interlocutor) staging (division of the dialogue into an invariant sequence of stages) logical pluralism, rule consistency, realism, retraceability, provision for data collection, tentativeness, tracking and allocation of burden of proof. The risk agora of McBurney Parsons (2000), although it is a formal system for persuasion dialogue, also provides a helpful parallel, in that it accommodates discussion of what rules of inference or argument schemes to use. The dialogical approach can give insight into the central relevance of specification in practical reasoning (Bratman ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

McBurney, Peter and Simon Parsons (2000b): "Risk Agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning." In: C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt (Editors): Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2000).

....about scienti c domains. Such an application is novel, although work in intelligent systems for legal applications has applied similar rules for legal discourse (also due to Alexy) 6] We are currently developing the speci cation of the system presented here and studying its formal properties [13]. In addition to representing the cases for and against particular claims, we also seek to incorporate qualitative assessment of the values of claims and their consequences [14] building on recent work extending logics of argumentation, for example, 5, 16] In this paper, we have considered ....

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientic reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Articial Intelligence (UAI-2000), Stanford, CA, USA, 2000. UAI.

....closest in approach to what we are seeking to achieve, although it is focused on generic dialogues and only between two participants. Within this tradition, we have proposed a formalism which permits participants to make, contest and defend claims, and we call the resulting system a Risk Agora [16]. Moreover, by using labels from uncertainty dictionaries, our formalism permits participants to express degrees of belief in claims, in their supporting evidences, in their modes of inference, and in their consequences. Participants could, for example, accept a scientific claim but label it ....

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2000), Stanford, CA, USA, 2000. UAI.

No context found.

McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, USA (2000) 371--379

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