On the formal assessment of argumentation support systems

Karacapilidis, N; Peppas, P

On the formal assessment of argumentation support systems

Karacapilidis, N Peppas, P

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 2014, 262 pp. 182 - 189
Issue Date:: 2014-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	article.pdf	Accepted Manuscript version	202.72 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Karacapilidis, N	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Peppas, P https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0008-5505	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 2014, 262 pp. 182 - 189	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9781614994046	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0922-6389	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/122548
dc.description.abstract	The development of argumentation support systems for different types of groups and application areas has been receiving growing interest in the last twenty years. Such systems address the needs of a user to interpret and reason about knowledge during a discourse, and demonstrate diverse human and machine reasoning functionalities. However, methodologies to check whether the reasoning mechanisms of such systems adhere to broadly accepted argumentation theories are missing. Provision of such methodologies is of much value, especially in data intensive contexts. The approach described in this paper is a first step towards this direction. Specifically, we formally assess a specific argumentation support system, namely HERMES, against Dungs argumentation theory and prove its correctness as far as the acceptability of arguments is concerned. © 2014 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.3233/978-1-61499-405-3-182	en_US
dc.title	On the formal assessment of argumentation support systems	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.citation.volume	262	en_US
utslib.for	080101 Adaptive Agents and Intelligent Robotics	en_US
dc.location.activity	Chania, GREECE
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Computer Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CAI - Centre for Artificial Intelligence
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	262	en_US

Abstract:

The development of argumentation support systems for different types of groups and application areas has been receiving growing interest in the last twenty years. Such systems address the needs of a user to interpret and reason about knowledge during a discourse, and demonstrate diverse human and machine reasoning functionalities. However, methodologies to check whether the reasoning mechanisms of such systems adhere to broadly accepted argumentation theories are missing. Provision of such methodologies is of much value, especially in data intensive contexts. The approach described in this paper is a first step towards this direction. Specifically, we formally assess a specific argumentation support system, namely HERMES, against Dungs argumentation theory and prove its correctness as far as the acceptability of arguments is concerned. © 2014 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/122548