Elements of Argumentation

By P. Besnard, Anthony Hunter. 2007

642 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

Citations in the corpus

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI (2019, neutral): “Since explaining, as argumenting, may involve weighting, comparing or convincing an audience with logic-based formalizations of (counter) arguments [28], explainability might convey us into the realm of cognitive psychology and the psychology of explanations [7], since measuring whether something ha”
Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences (2017, background): “4) is important for those working in collective intelligence; areas such as in multi-agent planning [6], computational social choice [14], or argumentation [4].”
An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments (2010, background): “Some, e.g. Bondarenko et al. (1997); Amgoud and Cayrol (2002); Verheij (2003); Besnard and Hunter (2008), locate the defeasibility of arguments in the uncertainty of their premises, so that arguments can only be attacked on their premises.”
Argumentation Mining on the Web from Information Seeking Perspective (2014, background): “It defines an argument as consisting of a (possibly empty) set of premises and a single claim; premises either support or attack the claim (Besnard and Hunter, 2008).”
A Relevance-theoretic Framework for Constructing and Deconstructing Enthymemes (2012, methodology): “[PS97, AC02, BH01, GS04, Hun07]), which assume that efficient algorithms for argumentation will continue to be developed that ameliorate the associated cost (see [ BH08a ] for a discussion).”
Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text (2009, background): “There are many formalisms for the description of argumentation, for example, [3] presents an argumentation formalism for reasoning agents.”
A general account of argumentation with preferences (2013, methodology): “Notice that inclusion of defeasible rules requires some explanation, given that much current work formalises construction of arguments as deductive [1, 2], and in particular classical [14, 26] inference.”
Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results (2011, background): “One of the key aims of argumentation research is to provide principled techniques for handling inconsistency [13, 46].”