A Group Decision and Negotiation Support System for argumentation based reasoning

  • Nikos Karacapilidis
  • Dimitris Papadias
Reasoning with Changing and Incomplete Information
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1359)


This paper describes a Group Decision and Negotiation Support System for cooperative or non-cooperative argumentative discourses. The system provides agents means of expressing and weighing their individual arguments and preferences, the aim being the selection of a certain choice. It also supports defeasible and qualitative reasoning in the presence of ill-structured information. Argumentation is performed through a set of discourse acts which call a variety of procedures for the propagation of information in the corresponding discussion graph.


Group Decision Argumentation Theory Default Logic Activation Label Proof Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B.: Conceptual Database Design: An Entity-Relationship Approach. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, Tr.: Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. In J.C. Hage, T.J.M. Bench-Capon, M.J. Cohen and H.J. van den Herik (eds.), Legal knowledge based systems — Telecommunication and AI & Law, Koninklijke Vermande BV, Lelystad, 1995, pp. 5–14.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, Montreal, 1995, pp. 1449–1455.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benferhat, S., Cayrol, C., Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Inconsistency Management and Prioritized Syntax-Based Entailment. In Proceedings of the 13th IJCAI, Chambery, 1993, pp. 640–645.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G.: Preferred Subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Proceedings of the 11th IJCAI, Detroit, 1989, pp. 1043–1048.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G.: Reasoning about Priorities in Default Logic. In Proceedings of the 12th AAAI, Seattle, 1994, pp. 940–945.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewka, G.: A Reconstruction of Rescher's Theory of Formal Disputation Based on Default Logic. In Working Notes of the 12th AAAI Workshop on Computational Dialectics, Seattle, 1994, pp. 15–27.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewka, G., Gordon, T.: How to Buy a Porsche: An Approach to Defeasible Decision Making. In Working Notes of the 12th AAAI Workshop on Computational Dialectics, Seattle, 1994, pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cayrol, C.: On the Relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment. In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, Montreal, 1995, pp. 1443–1448.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conklin, E.J.: Capturing Organizational Memory. In D. Coleman (ed.) Groupware '92, 1992, pp. 133–137.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. In Proceedings of the 13th IJCAI, Chambery, 1993, pp. 852–857.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, F.: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erblaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farley, A.M., Freeman, K.: Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th Int. Conference on AI and Law, 1995, pp. 156–164.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geffner, H., Pearl, J.: Conditional Entailment: Bridging two Approaches to Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53 (2–3), 1992, pp. 209–244.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gordon, T.: The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Green, D.W.: Arguments and Mental Models. In Proceedings of the Int. Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heidrich. C.H.: Montague-grammars for Argumentative Dialogues. In Barth & Martens (Eds.) Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hurwitz, R., Mallery, J.C.: The Open Meeting: A Web-Based System for Conferencing and Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 4th Int. WWW Conference, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karacapilidis, N.I.: Planning under Uncertainty: A Qualitative Approach. In C. Pinto-Ferreira and N.J. Mamede (eds.), Progress in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 990, Springer-Verlag, 1995, pp. 285–296.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karacapilidis, N.I., Papadias, D., Gordon, T.: An Argumentation Based Framework for Defeasible and Qualitative Reasoning. Advances in Arificial Intelligence, LNAI 1159, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knuth, D. E.: Fundamental Algorithms, Art of Computer Programming, Vol.1, Addison-Wesley, Second Edition, 1973.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J.: Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Paper 131, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Grundlagen der Plannung, 1970.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lueken, G-L.: Incommensurability, Rules of Argumentation and Anticipation. In Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conference of Argumentation, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mackworth, A., Freuder, E.: The Complexity of some Polynomial Network Consistency Algorithms for Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Artificial Intelligence 25, 1985, pp. 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pinkas, G.: Propositional Non-Monotonic Reasoning and Inconsistency in Symmetric Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 12th IJCAI, Sydney, 1991, pp. 525–530.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pollock, J.: Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 1988, pp. 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prakken, H.: Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Ph.D. Dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prakken, H.: From Logic to Dialectics in Legal Argument. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on AI and Law, ACM Press, 1995, pp. 165–174.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reiter, R.: A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 1980, pp. 81–132.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rescher, N.: Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1977.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rissland, E.L., Skalak, D.B.: Cabaret: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34, 1991, pp. 839–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 1973, pp. 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sian, S.S.: Adaptation based on cooperative learning in multi-agent systems. In Y. Demazeau and J.P. Müller (eds.), Decentralized AI 2, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1991, pp. 257–272.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53 (2–3), 1992, pp. 125–157.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sycara, K.: Resolving Goal Conflicts via Negotiation. In Proceedings of the 7th AAAI, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 1988, pp. 245–250.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sycara, K.: Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods. Ph.D. diss., School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1987.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Valesio, P.: Novantiqua: Rhetorics as a Contemporary Theory. Indiana University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yakemovic, K.C.B., Conklin, E.J.: Report on a Development Project Use of an Issue-Based Information System. In F. Halasz (ed.), Proceedings of CSCW 90, LA, 1990, pp. 105–118.Google Scholar
  40. 40. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikos Karacapilidis
    • 1
  • Dimitris Papadias
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA Sophia Antipolis, Action AIDSophia Antipolis CedexFrance
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceThe Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations