Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation

By Henry Prakken. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2005

356 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.

A dialogue system specification for explanation (2011, background): “Many formal dialogue systems have been built (Bench-Capon 2003; Prakken 2005, 2006 ), and through their applications (Verheij 2003), we are getting a much better idea of the general requirements for such systems, and how to build them.”
Formalizing Explanatory Dialogues (2015, methodology): “2See [18] for a full description of the protocol.”
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof (2007, background): “Finally, Prakken et al. [33] modiﬁed a persuasion dialogue game [31] to allow for debates on who has the burden of proof.”
Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks (2009, background): “…models have provided foundations for formalisation of argumentation-based dialogues [5], where, for example, one agent seeks to persuade another to adopt a belief it does not already hold to be true [33], or when agents deliberate about what actions to execute [21], or negotiate over resources [4].”
Argument Mining: A Survey (2020, methodology): “Conflicting elements in an opinion tree are then used to generate a “conflict tree”, similar to the dialectical trees (Prakken 2005) used traditionally in defeasible argumentation (Pollock 1987).”