Constrained argumentation frameworks

Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 112-122

  Coste Marquis, Sylvie ^a   Devred, Caroline ^a   Marquis, Pierre ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ D'ARTOIS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LEAD COMPOUNDS; SEMANTICS;

ADMISSIBLE SET; ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; COMPLEXITY ISSUES; PROPOSITIONAL FORMULAS;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 61649107406     PISSN: 23341025     EISSN: 23341033     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Amgoud, L., and Cayrol, C. 2002a. Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. of Art. Intelligence Research 29:125-169.
2. Amgoud, L., and Cayrol, C. 2002b. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3):197-215.
3. Amgoud, L.; Cayrol, C.; and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. 2004. On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In NMR'04, 1-10.
4. Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M. 2003. Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation. In ECSQARU'03, volume 2711 of LNAI, 440-451.
5. Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M. 2004. A recursive approach to argumentation: motivation and perspectives. In NMR'04, 50-58.
6. Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M.; and G.Guida. 2000. Extending abstract argumentation systems theory. Art. Intelligence 120(2):251-270.
7. Besnard, P., and Doutre, S. 2004. Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In NMR'04, 59-64.
8. Besnard, P., and Hunter, A. 2001. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Art. Intelligence 128:203-235.
9. Bondarenko, A.; Dung, P. M.; Kowalski, R.; and Toni, F. 1997. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Art. Intelligence 93:63-101.
10. Cayrol, C., and Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. 2002. Gradual handling of contradiction in argumentation frameworks. In IPMU'02, 83-90.
11. Cayrol, C., and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. 2005a. Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation framework. In ECSQARU'05, volume 3571 of LNAI, 366-377.
12. Cayrol, C., and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. 2005b. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation framework. In ECSQARU'05, volume 3571 of LNAI, 378-389.
13. Cayrol, C.; Doutre, S.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.; and Mengin, J. 2002. Minimal defence: a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. In NMR'02, 408-415.
14. Cayrol, C. 1995. From non-monotonic syntax-based entailment to preference-based argumentation. In ECSQARU'95, volume 946 of LNAI, 99-106.
15. Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; and Marquis, P. 2005a. Inference from controversial arguments. In LPAR'05, volume 3835 of LNAI, 606-620.
16. Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; and Marquis, P. 2005b. Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In ICTAI'05, 568-572.
17. Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; and Marquis, P. 2005c. Symmetric argumentation frameworks. In ECSQARU'05, volume 3571 of LNAI, 317-328.
18. Creignou, N. 1995. The class of problems that are linearly equivalent to satisfiability or a uniform method for proving NP-completeness. Theoretical Computer Science 145:111-145.
19. Dimopoulos, Y., and Torres, A. 1996. Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science 170:209-244.
20. Dimopoulos, Y.; Nebel, B.; and Toni, F. 2002. On the computional complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning. Art. Intelligence 141:57-78.
21. Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Art. Intelligence 77(2):321-358.
22. Dunne, P., and Bench-Capon, T. 2002. Coherence in finite argument system. Art. Intelligence 141:187-203.
23. 2-complete. Theoretical Computer Science 114:231-245. Addendum in vol. 118, page 115, 1993.
24. Elvang-Gøransson, M., and Hunter, A. 1995. Argumentative logics: Reasoning with classically inconsistent information. Data and Knowledge Engineering 16:125-145.
25. Elvang-Gøransson, M.; Fox, J.; and Krause, P. 1993a. Acceptability of arguments as logical uncertainty. In ECSQARU'93, volume 747 of LNAI, 85-90.
26. Elvang-Gøransson, M.; Fox, J.; and Krause, P. 1993b. Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In UAI'93, 114-121.
27. Kakas, A., and Toni, F. 1999. Computing argumentation in logic programming. J. of Logic and Computation 9(4):515-562.
28. Mardi, M.; Cayrol, C.; and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. 2005. Bipolarit́e en argumentation : acceptabilit́e et algorithmes. Rapport interne IRIT 2005-20-R, IRIT-UPS.
29. Papadimitriou, C. 1994. Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley.
30. Pollock, J. 1992. How to reason defeasibly. Art. Intelligence 57(1):1-42.
31. Prakken, A., and Vreeswijk, G. 2002. Logics for defeasible argumentation. volume 4 of Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 219-318.
32. Simari, G., and Loui, R. 1992. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Art. Intelligence 53(2-3):125-157.
33. Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
34. Vreeswijk, G. 1997. Abstract argumentation systems. Art. Intelligence 90:225-279.