Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Volumn 38, Issue , 2010, Pages 49-84

  Cayrol, Claudette ^a   De Saint Cyr, Florence Dupin ^a   Lagasquie Schiex, Marie Christine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PAUL SABATIER   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATION; ARGUMENTATION SYSTEMS; CARDINALITIES; PREFERRED SEMANTICS;

ABSTRACTING;

EID: 77957863669     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10769757     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1613/jair.2965     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510-530.
2. Amgoud, L., & Cayrol, C. (2002). Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 29, 125-169.
3. Amgoud, L., & Maudet, N. (2002). Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report). In Proc. of NMR, pp. 409-417.
4. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., & Parsons, S. (2000). Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In Proc. of ICMAS, pp. 31-38.
5. Amgoud, L., & Vesic, S. (2009). On Revising Argumentation-Based Decision Systems. In Proc. of ECSQARU, Vol.LNAI 5590, pp. 71-82. Springer-Verlag.
6. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., & Guida, G. (2005). Scc-recursiveness: A general schema for argumentation semantics. Artifical Intelligence, 168, 162-210.
7. Bench-Capon, T. (1998). Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In Proc. of JURIX, pp. 5-20.
8. Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of argumentation. MIT Press.
9. Boella, G., Kaci, S., & van der Torre, L. (2009a). Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Abstraction principles and the grounded extension. In Proc. of ECSQARU (LNAI 5590), pp. 107-118.
10. Boella, G., Kaci, S., & van der Torre, L. (2009b). Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension. In Proc. of AAMAS, pp. 1213-1214.
11. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentationtheoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63-101.
12. Caminada, M. (2006). Semi-stable semantics. In Proc. of COMMA, pp. 121-128.
13. Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M. (2008). Revision of an argumentation system. In Proc. of KR 2008, pp. 124-134. AAAI Press.
14. Chesnevar, C., Maguitman, A., & Loui, R. (2000). Logical models of argument. ACM Computing surveys, 32 (4), 337-383.
15. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M., & Marquis, P. (2007). On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, 171 (10-15), 730-753.
16. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., & Marquis, P. (2005). Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of ICTAI, pp. 568-572.
17. 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.
18. Dung, P. M., Mancarella, P., & Toni, F. (2006). A dialectic procedure for sceptical assumption-based argumentation. In Proc. of COMMA, pp. 145-156.
19. Dunne, P., & Bench-Capon, T. (2001). Complexity and combinatorial properties of argument systems. Tech. report, U.L.C.S.
20. Dunne, P., & Bench-Capon, T. (2002). Coherence in finite argument system. Artificial Intelligence, 141 (1-2), 187-203.
21. Falappa, M., García, A., & Simari, G. (2004). Belief dynamics and defeasible argumentation in rational agents. In Proc. of NMR, pp. 164-170.
22. Hunter, A. (2004). Making argumentation more believable. In Proc. of AAAI, pp. 269-274.
23. Kakas, A. C., & Moraïtis, P. (2003). Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In Proc. of AAMAS, pp. 883-890.
24. Matt, P., & Toni, F. (2008). A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In Proc. of JELIA (LNAI 5293), pp. 285-297.
25. Nute, D. (2003). Defeasible logic. In Proc. of INAP 2001, LNAI 2543, pp. 151-169.
26. Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2005). Revising beliefs through arguments: Bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS. In Argumentation in Multi- Agent Systems, pp. 78-94. Springer.
27. Pollock, J., & Gillies, A. (2000). Belief revision and epistemology. Synthese, 122 (1-2), 69-92.
28. Pollock, J. L. (1992). How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence, 57, 1-42.
29. Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. (2002). Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.4, pp. 218-319. Kluwer Academic.
30. Riveret, R., Prakken, H., Rotolo, A., & Sartor, G. (2008). Heuristics in argumentation: A game-theoretical investigation. In Proc. of COMMA, pp. 324-335.
31. Rotstein, N. D., Moguillansky, M. O., Falappa, M. A., García, A. J., & Simari, G. R. (2008a). Argument theory change: Revision upon warrant. In Proc. of COMMA, pp. 336-347. IOS Press.
32. Rotstein, N. D., Moguillansky, M. O., García, A. J., & Simari, G. R. (2008b). An abstract argumentation framework for handling dynamics. In Proc. of NMR, pp. 131-139.
33. Wassermann, R. (1999). Full acceptance through argumentation - A preliminary report. In Proc. of IJCAI Workshop Practical Reasoning and Rationality.
34. Witteveen, C., & van der Hoek, W. (1997). A general framework for revising nonmonotonic theories. In Proc. of LPNMR (LNAI 1265), pp. 258-272. Springer.