Hierarchical argumentation

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4160 LNAI, Issue , 2006, Pages 319-332

  Modgil, S ^a  

^a CRUK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCIENCE; DATA PROCESSING; FORMAL LOGIC; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; SEMANTICS;

DUNG ARGUMENTATION; HIERARCHICAL ARGUMENTATION; N-1 FRAMEWORK;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 33750052896     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11853886_27     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning, Volume 29 (2): 125-169, 2002.
2. L. Amgoud and S. Kaci. On generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis, and C. Reed, editors, Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, New York, 2004. Springer.
3. L. Atkinson. What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. PhD thesis, Dept. Computer Science, University of Liverpool, 2005.
4. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429-448, 2003.
5. P. Besnard and A. Hunter. Practical first-order argumentation. In Proc. 20th American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'2005), pages 590-595, 2005.
6. G. Brewka. Well-founded semantics for extended logic programs with dynamic preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4:19, 1996.
7. M. Caminada. For the sake of the Argument. Explorations into argument-based reasoning. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Free University Amsterdam, 2004.
8. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321-357, 1995.
9. D. Hitchcock, P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. A framework for deliberation dialogues. In H. V. Hansen et.al, editor, Proc. Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), Canada, 2001.
10. H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of logic and computation, 9(2):215-261, 1999.
11. S. Modgil. Nested argumentation and its application to decision making over actions. In Proc. Second Int. Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Netherlands, 2005.
12. J. L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11:481-518, 1987.
13. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7:25-75, 1997.
14. D. N. Walton. Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996.
15. M. Wooldridge, P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. On the meta-logic of arguments. In AAMAS '05: Proc. Fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pages 560-567, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.