On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 171, Issue 10-15, 2007, Pages 675-700

  Baroni, Pietro ^a   Giacomin, Massimiliano ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRESCIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Argumentation frameworks; Argumentation semantics; Skepticism

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; FORMAL LOGIC; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; SEMANTICS;

ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; ARGUMENTATION SEMANTICS; SKEPTICISM;

INFORMATION THEORY;

EID: 34548038125     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Amgoud L., and Cayrol C. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34 1-3 (2002) 197-215
2. Baroni P., and Giacomin M. Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2003). Lecture Notes Artif. Intell. vol. 2711 (2003), Springer-Verlag, Aalborg, Denmark 440-451
3. P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, Evaluating argumentation semantics with respect to skepticism adequacy, in: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005), Barcelona, 2005, pp. 329-340
4. P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, On principle-based evaluation, comparison, and design of extension-based argumentation semantics, Technical report, University of Brescia, Italy, 2007
5. P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, G. Guida, Towards a formalization of skepticism in extension-based argumentation semantics, in: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), Valencia, Spain, 2004, pp. 47-52
6. Baroni P., Giacomin M., and Guida G. SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168 1-2 (2005) 165-210
7. Bench-Capon T.J.M. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13 3 (2003) 429-448
8. M. Caminada, For the sake of the argument; explorations into argument-based reasoning, PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2004
9. Caminada M. Semi-stable semantics. In: Dunne P.E., and Bench-Capon T. (Eds). Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA 2006) (2006), IOS Press, Liverpool, UK 121-130
10. Caminada M. On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 06) (2006), Springer, Liverpool, UK 111-123
11. Caminada M., and Amgoud L. An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. Proceedings of the Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-05) (2005), American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA 608-613
12. Coste-Marquis S., Devred C., and Marquis P. Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2005) (2005), IEEE Computer Society, Hong Kong, China 568-572
13. S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, P. Marquis, Sémantiques prudentes pour les systèmes d'argumentation, in: Proceedings of the 15th Congress AFRIF-AFIA Reconnaissance des Formes et Intelligence Artificielle (RFIA 2006), Tours, F, 2006
14. Dung P.M. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77 2 (1995) 321-357
15. Dung P.M., Mancarella P., and Toni F. A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Dunne P.E., and Bench-Capon T. (Eds). Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA 2006) (2006), IOS Press, Liverpool, UK 145-156
16. Horty J.F. Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artificial Intelligence 135 1-2 (2002) 55-72
17. Jakobovits H., and Vermeir D. Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 9 2 (1999) 215-261
18. Modgil S. Hierarchical argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 06) (2006), Springer, Liverpool, UK 319-332
19. Pollock J.L. How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57 1 (1992) 1-42
20. H. Prakken, Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies, in: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2002), Toulouse, France, 2002, pp. 91-102
21. Prakken H. Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: Dunne P.E., and Bench-Capon T. (Eds). Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA 2006) (2006), IOS Press, Liverpool, UK 311-322
22. Prakken H., and Vreeswijk G.A.W. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay D.M., and Guenthner F. (Eds). Handbook of Philosophical Logic. second ed. (2001), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
23. Reiter R. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13 1-2 (1980) 81-132
24. B. Verheij, Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages, in: Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC'96), Utrecht, NL, 1996, pp. 357-368
25. G.A.W. Vreeswijk, Interpolation of benchmark problems in defeasible reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence (WOCFAI 95), Paris, France, pp. 453-468