ARGUER: Using Argument Schemas for Argument Detection and Rebuttal in Dialogs

  • A. C. Restificar
  • S. S. Ali
  • S. W. McRoy
Conference paper
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 407)


This paper presents a computational method for argumentation on the basis of a declarative characterization of the structure of arguments. The method can be used to implement a computational agent that is both able to detect arguments and to generate candidate arguments for rebuttal. The method makes no a priori assumptions about attack and support relations between propositions that are advanced by the agents participating in a dialog. Rather, using the method, these relations are dynamically established while the dialog is taking place. This allows incremental processing since the system need only consider the current utterance advanced by the dialog participant, along with the prior context, to be able to continue processing.


Argument Schema Support Relation Incremental Processing Argumentation Knowledge Prior Context 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Syed S. Ali, Angelo C. Restificar, and Susan W. McRoy. Relevance in argumentation. 1999. In submission.Google Scholar
  2. S. Alvarado. Understanding Editorial Text: A Computer Model of Argument Comprehension. Kluwer Academic, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. L. Birnbaum, M. Flowers, and R. McGuire. Towards an AI Model of Argumentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI-80, pages 313–315, Stanford, CA, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. M. Bordegoni, G. Faconti, T. Y. Maybury, T. Rist, S. Ruggieri, P. Trahanias, and M. Wilson. A Standard Reference Model for Intelligent Multimedia Representation Systems. The International Journal on the Development and Applications of Standards for Computers, Data Communications and Interfaces, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. Jennifer Chu-Caroll and Sandra Carberry. Generating Information-Sharing Subdialogues in Expert-User Consultation. In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, pages 1243–1250, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. N. Karacapilidis and D. Papadias. Hermes: Supporting Argumentative Discourse in Multi-Agent Decision Making. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98, pages 827–832, Madison, WI 1998.Google Scholar
  7. Susan W. McRoy and Graeme Hirst. The repair of speech act misunderstandings by abductive inference. Computational Linguistics, 21(4):435–478, December 1995.Google Scholar
  8. Susan W. McRoy. Misunderstanding and the negotiation of meaning. Knowledge-based Systems, 8(2–3): 126–134, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. Susan McRoy. Achieving robust human-computer communication. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48:681–704, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. S. C. Shapiro and W. J. Rapaport. The SNePS Family. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 23, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. G. Vreeswijk. IACAS: An Implementation of Chisholm’s Principles of Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pages 225–234, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. I. Zukerman, R. McConachy, and K. Korb. Bayesian Reasoning in an Abductive Mechanism for Argument Generation and Analysis. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98, pages 833–838, Madison, Wisconsin, July 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. C. Restificar
    • 1
  • S. S. Ali
    • 2
  • S. W. McRoy
    • 1
  1. 1.Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Mathematical SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations