Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation

References

• Achillas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Karagiannidis, A., Banias, G., & Perkoulidis, G. ( 2013). The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management problems: A literature review. Waste Management & Research, 31, 115–129. doi: 10.1177/0734242X12470203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C., & Livet, P. ( 2008). On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 23, 1062–1093. doi: 10.1002/int.20307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & McBurney, P. ( 2006). PARMENIDES: Facilitating deliberation in democracies. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14, 261–275. doi: 10.1007/s10506-006-9001-5
   Google Scholar
• Aurisicchio, M., & Bracewell, R. ( 2013). Capturing an integrated design information space with a diagram-based approach. Journal of Engineering Design, 24, 397–428. doi: 10.1080/09544828.2012.757693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroni, P., Caminada, M., & Giacomin, M. ( 2011). An introduction to argumentation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26, 365–410. doi: 10.1017/S0269888911000166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., & Bertanza, G. ( 2013, September 16–18). An argumentation-based approach for automatic evaluation of design debates. In J. Leite, T. C. Son, P. Torroni, L. van der Torre, & S. Woltran (Eds.), Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, 14th International Workshop, CLIMA XIV, Corunna, Spain, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 8143, pp. 340–356). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. ( 2001). A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 128, 203–235. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00071-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewka, G., & Gordon, T. ( 1994, July 31). How to buy a Porsche: An approach to defeasible decision making. In Working notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics (pp. 28–38). Seattle, WA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, F., Jin, Y., Higgins, C., Bell, D., Rooney, N., Wang, H., … Taylor, P. ( 2011). The application of a natural language argumentation based approach within project life cycle management. Proceedings of the 22nd Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, University of Ulster, Magee Campus, Derry, Northern Ireland..
   Google Scholar
• Buckingham Shum, S. J. (2008, May 28–30). Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, & A. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), Toulouse, France, Vol. 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (pp. 97–108). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Hammond, N. ( 1994). Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 603–652. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckingham Shum, S. J., Selvin, A. M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C. B., & Nuseibeh, B. ( 2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 Years on from gIBIS and QOC. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 111–132). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C. ( 2005a, July 6–8). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In L. Godo (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005), Barcelona, Spain, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3571, pp. 378–389). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C. ( 2005b, July 6–8). Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In L. Godo (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005), Barcelona, Spain, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3571, pp. 366–377). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. ( 2013). Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54, 876–899. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2013.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne, P. E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., & Wooldridge, M. ( 2011). Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 457–486. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2010.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evripidou, V., & Toni, F. ( 2012, September 10–12). Argumentation and voting for an intelligent user empowering business directory on the web. In M. Krötzsch & U. Straccia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR’12), Vienna, Austria. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7497, pp. 209–212). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Evripidou, V., & Toni, F. ( 2014). Quaestio-it.com: A social intelligent debating platform. Journal of Decision Systems, 23, 333–349. doi: 10.1080/12460125.2014.886496
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., McCall, R., & Morch, A. I. ( 1991). Making argumentation serve design. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 393–419. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_7
   Google Scholar
• Gabbay, D. M. (2012). Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argument & Computation, 3, 87–142. doi: 10.1080/19462166.2012.704398
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, T. F., & Karacapilidis, N. I. ( 1997, June 30–July 3). The Zeno Argumentation Framework. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’97) (pp. 10–18). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. ( 2006, September 11–12). The Carneades argumentation framework – using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P. E. Dunne & T. J. M. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), Liverpool, UK. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (Vol. 144, pp. 195–207). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jin, Y., & Geslin, M. ( 2009). Argumentation-based negotiation for collaborative engineering design. International Journal of Collaborative Engineering, 1, 125–151. doi: 10.1504/IJCE.2009.027443
   Google Scholar
• Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. ( 2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The HERMES system. Information Systems, 26, 259–277. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4379(01)00020-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karacapilidis, N., Tzagarakis, M., Karousos, N., Gkotsis, G., Kallistros, V., Christodoulou, S., & Mettouris, C. ( 2009). Tackling cognitively-complex collaboration with CoPe_it! International Journal of Web-based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 4, 22–38. doi: 10.4018/jwbltt.2009090802
   Google Scholar
• Klement, E. P., Mesiar, R., & Pap, E. ( 2000). Triangular norms. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. ( 1970). Issues as elements of information systems (Working Paper 131). Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Leite, J., & Martins, J. ( 2011, July 16–22). Social abstract argumentation. In T. Walsh (Ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’11), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain (pp. 2287–2292). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, X., Raorane, S., Zheng, M., & Leu, M. ( 2006, May 14–17). An Internet based intelligent argumentation system for collaborative engineering design. In W. W. Smari & W. K. McQuay (Eds.), Proceedings of CTS 2006, International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems, Las Vegas, NV, USA (pp. 318–325) Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Marashi, E., & Davis, J. P. ( 2006). An argumentation-based method for managing complex issues in design of infrastructural systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91, 1535–1545. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2006.01.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matt, P. A., & Toni, F. ( 2008, September 28–October 1). A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In S. Hölldobler, C. Lutz, & H. Wansing (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2008), Dresden, Germany. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5293, pp. 285–297). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. ( 1984). Engineering design: A systematic approach (Technical report). London: Design Council.
   Google Scholar
• Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: Integrated methods for successful product engineering. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. ( 1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, 26, 145–159. doi: 10.1037/h0030806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. ( 2004). Product design and development (3rd ed.). New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar