Metalevel argumentation

Journal of Logic and Computation

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 959-1003

  Modgil, Sanjay ^a   Bench Capon, Trevor J M ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation; dung; metalevel; preferences; values

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION; DUNG; METALEVEL; PREFERENCES; VALUES;

COMPUTER SCIENCE; FORMAL LOGIC;

LOGIC PROGRAMMING;

EID: 80053396073     PISSN: 0955792X     EISSN: 1465363X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/logcom/exq054     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. L.Amgoud and C. Cayrol.Areasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34, 197-215, 2002. (Pubitemid 37133007)
2. L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol, M. Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Livet. On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 23, 1062-1093, 2008.
3. L. Amgoud and S. Vesic. Repairing preference-based argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 21st International Jont conference on Artifical Intelligence, pp. 665-670. AAAI Press, 2009.
4. K. M. Atkinson, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152, 157-206, 2006. (Pubitemid 44510926)
5. K. Atkinson and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Action-based alternating transition systems for arguments about action. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'07), pp. 24-29. AAAI Press, 2007. (Pubitemid 350149548)
6. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G. Guida. Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Vol. 5590 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 83-94. Springer, 2009.
7. P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, andG. Guida.Afra:Argumentation framework with recursive attacks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, to appear.
8. P. Baroni and M. Giacomin. Resolution-based argumentation semantics. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp. 25-36. IOS Press, 2008.
9. H. Barringer, D.M. Gabbay, and J.Woods. Temporal dynamics of support and attack networks: from argumentation to zoology. Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, Vol. 2605 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 59-98. Springer, 2005. (Pubitemid 350227621)
10. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic, 22, 231-245, 2003.
11. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 429-448, 2003.
12. T. J. M. Bench-Capon, S. Doutre, and P. E. Dunne. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 42-71, 2007. (Pubitemid 46073928)
13. T. J. M. Bench-Capon and P. E. Dunne. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 10-15, 2007.
14. T. J. M. Bench-Capon and S. Modgil. Case law in extended argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Law (ICAIL'09), pp. 118-127. ACM Press, 2009.
15. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Representation of case law as an argumentation framework. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Proceedings of JURIX 2002, pp. 103-112. IOS Press, 2002.
16. A. Bochman. Collective argumentation and disjunctive programming. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 405-428, 2003.
17. G. Boella, D. M. Gabbay, L. van der Torre, and S. Villata. Meta-argumentation modelling 1: methodology and techniques. Studia Logica, 93, 297-355, 2009.
18. G. Boella, J. Hulstijn, and L. van der Torre.Alogic of abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 2nd InternationalWorkshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems,Vol. 4049 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 29-41. Springer, 2005.
19. G. Boella, L. van der Torre, and S. Villata. Social viewpoints for arguing about coalitions. In Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Rim International Conference on Multi-agents, pp. 66-77, 2008.
20. G. Boella, L. van der Torre, and S. Villata. On the acceptability of meta-arguments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 259-262, 2009.
21. A. Bondarenko, P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63-101, 1997. (Pubitemid 127401113)
22. M. Caminada. On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In 10th European Conference on Logic in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), Vol. 5293 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 111-123. Springer, 2006. (Pubitemid 44576962)
23. M. Caminada.An algorithm for computing semi-stable semantics. In 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU'09), Vol. 5590 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 222-234. Springer, 2007.
24. C. Cayrol, S. Doutre, and J. Mengin. On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 377-403, 2003.
25. C. Cayrol and M.-Ch. Lagasquie-Schiex. Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25, 83-109, 2010.
26. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321-357, 1995.
27. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Two party immediate response dispute: properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 221-250, 2003.
28. P. E. Dunne, A. Hunter, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and M.Wooldridge. Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 851-858, 2009.
29. D. M. Gabbay. Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames. Part 1: overview. Studia Logica, 93, 357-381, 2009.
30. G. Governatori andM.J. Maher.An argumentation-theoretic characterization of defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 469-473. IOS Press, 2000.
31. H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of logic and computation, 9, 215-261, 1999.
32. S. Kaci and L. van der Torre. Preference-based argumentation: arguments supporting multiple values. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 48, 730-751, 2008.
33. S. Modgil. Hierarchical argumentation. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), Vol. 5293 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 319-332. Springer 2006. (Pubitemid 44576978)
34. S. Modgil. Value based argumentation in hierarchical argumentation frameworks. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp. 297-308. IOS Press, 2006.
35. S. Modgil. An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Vol. 4724 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 648-659. Springer, 2007.
36. S. Modgil. An argumentation based semantics for agent reasoning. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages, Methodologies and Development Tools for Multi-agent Systems (LADS 07), Vol. 5118 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 37-53. Springer, 2007.
37. S. Modgil. Labellings and games for extended argumentation frameworks. In Twenty-first International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-09), pp. 873-878.AAAI Press, 2009.
38. S. Modgil. Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 173, 901-934, 2009.
39. S. Modgil and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp. 240-251. IOS Press, 2008.
40. S. Modgil and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Integrating dialectical and accrual modes of argumentation. In 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), 2010 (to appear).
41. S. Modgil and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Metalevel argumentation. Technical Report (September 1, 2009), Available at www.csc.liv.ac.uk/research/techreports/ techreports.html.
42. S. Modgil and M. Caminada. Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In Argumentation in AI, I. Rahwan and G. Simari, eds, pp. 105-129. Springer, 2009.
43. S. Modgil and M. Luck. Argumentation based resolution of conflicts between desires and normative goals. In Proceedings of the 5th InternationalWorkshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 252-263, 2008.
44. S. H. Nielsen and S. Parsons.Ageneralization of Dung's abstract framework for argumentation: arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems, Vol. 5384 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 54-73. Springer, 2006. (Pubitemid 351152078)
45. N. Oren and T. J. Norman. Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp. 276-284. IOS Press, 2008.
46. H. Prakken. A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In ICAIL '05: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 85-94. ACM Press, 2005.
47. I. Rahwan and G. Simari, eds. Argumentation in AI. Springer, 2009.
48. J. R. Searle. Rationality in Action. MIT Press, 2001.
49. B. Verheij. Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC'96), pp. 357-368. IOS Press, 1996.
50. B.Verheij.Alabeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 623-628. AAAI Press, 2007.
51. G. Vreeswijk. An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp. 109-120. IOS Press, 2006.
52. G. A. W. Vreeswijk and H. Prakken. Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1919 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 239-253. Springer, 2000.
53. M.Wooldridge, P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. On the meta-logic of arguments. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 560-567. ACM Press, 2005.