Towards fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for argumentation

Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 112-122

  Dvořák, Wolfgang ^a   Pichler, Reinhard ^a   Woltran, Stefan ^a  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATION THEORY; FORESTRY;

ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; COMPUTATIONAL PROBLEM; COURCELLE'S THEOREMS; FIXED-PARAMETER TRACTABLE ALGORITHMS; LINEAR TIME; TREE-WIDTH;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

ALGORITHMS; FORESTRY; PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 78049294609     PISSN: 23341025     EISSN: 23341033     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M. 2009. Semantics of abstract argument systems. In Rahwan, I., and Simari, G., eds., Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer. 25-44.
2. Berwanger, D.; Dawar, A.; Hunter, P.; and Kreutzer, S. 2006. DAG-width and parity games. In Proc. STACS'06, volume 3884 of LNCS, 524-536. Springer.
3. Bodlaender, H. L. 1996. A linear-time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth. SIAM J. Comput. 25(6):1305-1317.
4. Caminada, M., and Gabbay, D. M. 2009. A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica 93(2-3):109-145.
5. Caminada, M. 2006. Semi-stable semantics. In Proc. COMMA'06, volume 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 121-130. IOS Press.
6. Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; and Marquis, P. 2005. Symmetric argumentation frameworks. In Proc. ECSQARU'05, volume 3571 of LNCS, 317-328. Springer.
7. Courcelle, B., and Olariu, S. 2000. Upper bounds to the clique-width of graphs. Discr. Appl.Math. 101(1-3):77-114.
8. Courcelle, B. 1990. The monadic second-order logic of graphs. I. Recognizable sets of finite graphs. Inf. Comput. 85(1):12-75.
9. Dimopoulos, Y., and Torres, A. 1996. Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theor. Comput. Sci. 170(1-2):209-244.
10. Dix, J.; Parsons, S.; Prakken, H.; and Simari, G. R. 2009. Research challenges for argumentation. Computer Science - R&D 23(1):27-34.
11. Doutre, S., and Mengin, J. 2001. Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: Query answering and computation. In Proc. IJCAR'01, volume 2083 of LNCS, 272-288. Springer.
12. Dung, P. M.; Mancarella, P.; and Toni, F. 2007. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15):642- 674.
13. Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2):321-358.
14. Dunne, P. E., and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 2002. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell. 141(1/2):187-203.
15. Dunne, P. E. 2007. Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15):701-729.
16. Eggan, L. C. 1963. Transition graphs and the star height of regular events. Michigan Math. J. 10:385-397.
17. Gruber, H. 2008. Digraph complexity measures and applications in formal language theory. In Proc. MEMICS'08, 60-67.
18. Hunter, P., and Kreutzer, S. 2008. Digraph measures: Kelly decompositions, games, and orderings. Theor. Comput. Sci. 399(3):206-219.
19. Jakl, M.; Pichler, R.; and Woltran, S. 2009. Answer-set programming with bounded treewidth. In Proc. IJCAI'09, 816-822. AAAI Press.
20. Johnson, T.; Robertson, N.; Seymour, P. D.; and Thomas, R. 2001. Directed tree-width. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 82(1):138-154.
21. Kloks, T. 1994. Treewidth, Computations and Approximations, volume 842 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
22. Modgil, S., and Caminada, M. 2009. Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer. 105-129.
23. Robertson, N., and Seymour, P. D. 1986. Graph minors. II. Algorithmic aspects of tree-width. J. Algorithms 7(3):309- 322.
24. Verheij, B. 1996. Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: Admissible sets and argumentation stages. In Proc. NAIC'96, 357-368.