A computational model of argumentation in agreement negotiation processes

References

• Allen, J. (1995). Natural language understanding (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, J., Ferguson, G., & Stent, A. (2001). An architecture for more realistic conversational systems. In IUI ’01: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 1–8). Santa Fe, NM: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T.J.M., & Dunne, P.E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 619–641. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of argumentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boella, G., Hulstijn, J., & van der Torre, L. (2004). Persuasion strategies in dialogue. Proceedings of the ECAI workshop on computational models of natural argument (CMNA’04), Valencia.
   Google Scholar
• Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2003). BDI and BOID argumentation. Proceedings of CMNA-03. The 3rd workshop on computational models of natural argument at IJCAI-2003, Acapulco. Retrieved from www.cmna.info
   Google Scholar
• Bratman, M.E. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (reissued by CSLI 1999).
   Google Scholar
• Bringsjord, S., Taylor, J., Shilliday, A., Clark, M., Arkoudas, K., & Khemlani, S. (2008). Slate: An argument-centered intelligent assistant to human reasoners. Proceedings of CMNA-08, Patras, Greece. Retrieved from http://www.cmna.info/CMNA8/
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carruthers, P., & Smith, P.K. (Eds.). (1996). Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., & Loui, R. (2000). Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4), 337–383. doi: 10.1145/371578.371581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu-Carroll, J., & Carberry, S. (1998). Collaborative response generation in planning dialogues. Computational Linguistics, 24(3), 355–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In D. Holland and A. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models of language and thought (pp. 112–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Danieli, M., & Gerbino, E. (1995). Metrics for evaluating dialogue strategies in a spoken language system. Proceedings of the 1995 AAAI spring symposium on empirical methods in discourse interpretation and generation, Palo Alto, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M., & Stone, T. (1995). Folk psychology: The theory of mind debate. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Dȩbowska, K., Łoziński, P., & Reed, C. (2009). Building bridges between everyday argument and formal representations of reasoning. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 16(29), 95–135.
   Google Scholar
• Ginzburg, J., & Fernández, R. (2010). Computational models of dialogue. In A. Clark, C. Fox, and S. Lappin (Eds.), The handbook of computational linguistics and natural language processing (pp. 429–481). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.
   Google Scholar
• Hadjinikolis, C., Modgil, S., Black, E., Mcburney, P., & Luck, M. (2012). Investigating strategic considerations in persuasion dialogue games (Vol. 241: STAIRS 2012, pp. 137–148). Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press. 10.3233/978-1-61499-096-3-137
   Google Scholar
• Hennoste, T., Gerassimenko, O., Kasterpalu, R., Koit, M., Rääbis, A., & Strandson, K. (2008, May 28–30). From human communication to intelligent user interfaces: Corpora of spoken Estonian. Proceedings of the sixth international language resources and evaluation (LREC’08), European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Marrakech, Morocco. Retrieved from http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1991). Intention, meaning, and strategy: Observations on constraints on interaction analysis. Cognitive Sciences, 24, 311–332.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jokinen, K., & McTear, M.F. (2009). Spoken dialogue systems. Princeton, NJ: Morgan & Claypool.
   Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J.H. (2008). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Koit, M. (2011, October 26–29). Conversational agent in argumentation: Updating of information states. In J. Filipe and J.L.G. Dietz (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on knowledge engineering and ontology development: KEOD 2011 (international conference on knowledge engineering and ontology development) (pp. 375–378). Paris: SciTEC.
   Google Scholar
• Koit, M. (2012, August 27). Developing software for training argumentation skills. In F. Grasso, N. Green, & C. Reed (Eds.), Proceedings of CMNA-2012: The 12th workshop on computational models of natural argument at ECAI-2012 (pp. 11–15), Montpellier. Retrieved from http://www.cmna.info/CMNA12/
   Google Scholar
• Koit, M., & Õim, H. (2000). Reasoning in interaction: A model of dialogue. In E. Wehrli (Ed.), TALN 2000. 7th conference on automatic natural language processing (pp. 217–224), Lausanne.
   Google Scholar
• Koit, M., & Õim, H. (2004). Argumentation in the agreement negotiation process: A model that involves natural reasoning. In F. Grasso, C. Reed, & G. Carenini (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop W12 on computational models of natural argument. 16th European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 53–56), Valencia.
   Google Scholar
• Koit, M., Roosmaa, T., & Õim, H. (2009, October 6–8). Knowledge representation for human-machine interaction. In J.L.G. Dietz (Ed.), Proceedings of the international conference on knowledge engineering and ontology development: International conference on knowledge engineering and ontology development, Madeira (Portugal) (pp. 396–399). Portugal: INSTICC.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H., & Elster, J. (Eds.). (2012). Collective wisdom. Principles and mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, J.A., & Moore, J.A. (1978). Dialogue-games: Metacommunications structures for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4), 395–420. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0104_2
   Google Scholar
• Loui, R.P. (1998). Process and policy: Resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14, 1–38. doi: 10.1111/0824-7935.00055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2009). Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In I. Rahwan & G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 261–280). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morge, M., & Mancarella, P. (2012). Arguing over goals for negotiation: Adopting an assumption-based argumentation decision support system. Dordrecht: Springer Media. 10.1007/s10726-012-9324-4
   Google Scholar
• Morris, R.M.G., Tarassenko, L., & Kenward, M. (2005). Cognitive systems – information processing meets brain science. Cambridge: Academic Press – Psychology.
   Google Scholar
• Ortony, A. (Ed.). (2003). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paradis, C., Hudson, J., & Magnusson, U. (Eds.). (2013). The construal of spatial meaning: Windows into conceptual space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rahwan, I., & Larson, K. (2011). Logical mechanism design. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(1), 61–69. doi: 10.1017/S0269888910000421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., & Sonenberg, L. (2004). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343–375. doi: 10.1017/S0269888904000098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B.M. (2009). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tohmé, F. (2002). Negotiation and defeasible decision making. Theory and Decision, 53(4), 289–311. doi: 10.1023/A:1024189714814
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traum, D., & Larsson, S. (2003). The information state approach to dialogue management. In J. van Kuppevelt & R. Smith (Eds.). Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue (pp. 325–353). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D.N., & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, S., & Reed, C. (2006). Testing formal dialectic. Argumentation in multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4049, pp. 74–87. Utrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Yuan, T., Moore, D., & Grierson, A. (2008). A human-computer dialogue system for educational debate, a computational dialectics approach. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(1), 3–26.
   Google Scholar
• Yuan, T., Moore, D., Reed, C., Ravenscroft, A., & Maudet, N. (2011). Informal logic dialogue games in human-computer dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(2), 159–174. doi: 10.1017/S026988891100004X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar