Solving weighted argumentation frameworks with soft constraints

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

Volumn 6384 LNAI, Issue , 2011, Pages 1-18

  Bistarelli, Stefano ^a,b   Pirolandi, Daniele ^a   Santini, Francesco ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PERUGIA   (Italy)

^b CNR   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHIETI   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGEBRAIC STRUCTURES; ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; CONSTRAINT SOLVERS; PREFERENCE LEVEL; PROBABILITY LEVELS; SEMI-RING; SOFT CONSTRAINT; SOFT CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION; QUANTITATIVE FRAMEWORKS;

CONSTRAINT THEORY; LOGIC PROGRAMMING; MAPPING; PETROLEUM REFINING; SEMANTICS; CODES (SYMBOLS); COMPUTATION THEORY; COMPUTER CIRCUITS; COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; PROBLEM SOLVING;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS;

EID: 79952932488     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-19486-3_1     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062-1093 (2008)
2. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reasoning 29(2), 125-169 (2002)
3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429-448 (2003)
4. Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 59-64 (2004)
5. Bistarelli, S.: Semirings for Soft Constraint Solving and Programming. LNCS, vol. 2962. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
6. Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Soft concurrent constraint programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7(3), 563-589 (2006)
7. Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based Constraint Solving and Optimization. Journal of the ACM 44(2), 201-236 (1997)
8. Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: Propagating multitrust within trust networks. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1990-1994. ACM, New York (2008)
9. Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: A common computational framework for semiring-based argumentation systems. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2010 (2010)
10. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 112-122. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)
11. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321-357 (1995)
12. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.,Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 851-858. IFAAMS (2009)
13. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.,Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2009, pp. 851-858. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2009)
14. Egly, U., Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: ASPARTIX: Implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 734-738. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
15. Haenni, R.: Probabilistic argumentation. J. Applied Logic 7(2), 155-176 (2009)
16. Janssen, J., De Cock, M., Vermeir, D.: Fuzzy argumentation frameworks. In: Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems, pp. 513-520 (2008)
17. Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618-644 (2007)
18. Jung, H., Tambe, M., Kulkarni, S.: Argumentation as distributed constraint satisfaction: applications and results. In: Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS), pp. 324-331. ACM, New York (2001)
19. Kohlas, J.: Probabilistic argumentation systems a new way to combine logic with probability. J. of Applied Logic 1(3-4), 225-253 (2003)
20. Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif. Intell. 104(1-2), 1-69 (1998)
21. Kuchcinski, K., Szymanek, R.: Jacop - java constraint programming solver (2001), http://jacop.osolpro.com/
22. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9-10), 901-934 (2009)
23. Montanari, U.: Networks of constraints: Fundamental properties and applications to picture processing. Inf. Sci. 7, 95-132 (1974)
24. Nieves, J.C., Cortés, U., Osorio, M.: Possibilistic-based argumentation: An answer set programming approach. In: Mexican International Conference on Computer Science (ENC), pp. 249-260. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)
25. O'Madadhain, J., Fisher, D., White, S., Boey, Y.: The JUNG (Java Universal Network/Graph) framework. Technical report, UC Irvine (2003)
26. Schroeder, M., Schweimeier, R.: Fuzzy argumentation for negotiating agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 942-943. ACM, New York (2002)