Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: Query, answering, and computation

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

Volumn 2083, Issue , 2001, Pages 272-288

  Doutre, Sylvie ^a   Mengin, Jérôme ^a  

^a IRIT   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; PREFERRED SEMANTICS; STABLE SEMANTICS;

ALGORITHMS; SEMANTICS;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 84867754361     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45744-5_20     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. A. Bondarenko, P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Art. Int., 93:63-101, 1997.
2. C. Berge. Graphs and Hypergraphs, volume 6 of North-Holland Mathematical Library. North-Holland, 1973.
3. C. Cayrol, S. Doutre and J. Mengin. Dialectical proof theories for the credulous preferred semantics of argumentation frameworks. Submitted, 2001.
4. G. Chaty and F. Levy. Default logic and kernel in digraph. Tech. Rep. 91-9, LIPN, 1991.
5. P. Dung, R. Kowalski, and F. Toni. Synthesis of Proof Procedures for Default Reasoning. In Proceedings of LOPSTR'96, vol. 1207 of LNCS. Springer, 1996.
6. Y. Dimopoulos and V. Magirou. A graph-theoretic approach to default logic. Information and computation, 112:239-256, 1994.
7. S. Doutre and J. Mengin. An Algorithm that Computes the Preferred Extensions of Argumentation Frameworks. In ECAI'2000, Third International Workshop on Computational Dialectics (CD'2000), pages 55-62, August 2000.
8. S. Doutre and J. Mengin. Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: computation and query answering. Tech. Rep. IRIT/2001-03-R, March 2001.
9. Y. Dimopoulos, V. Magirou, and C. Papadimitriou. On kernels, Defaults and Even Graphs. Annals of Mathematics and AI, 1997.
10. Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, and F. Toni. Preferred Arguments are Harder to Compute than Stable Extensions. In Proceedings of IJCAI'99, pages 36-41, 1999.
11. Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, and F. Toni. Finding Admissible and Preferred Arguments Can be Very Hard. In Proceedings of KR'2000, pages 53-61, 2000.
12. Y. Dimopoulos and A. Torres. Graph-theoretic structures in logic programs and default theories. Tech. Rep. 93-264, Max-Planck-Institut für Informatik, November 1993.
13. P. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Art. Int., 77:321-357, 1995.
14. K. Inoue. Linear resolution for consequence finding. Art. Int., 56:301-353, 1992.
15. F. Levy. Computing Extensions of Default Theories. In R. Kruse and P. Siegel, editors, Proceedings of ECSQAU'91, vol. 548 of LNCS, pages 219-226. Springer, 1991.
16. I. Niemelä. Towards Efficient Default Reasoning. In IJCAI'95, pages 312-318, 1995.
17. R. Reiter. A Theory of Diagnosis from First Principles. Art. Int., 32:57-95, 1987.
18. R. Rymon. Search through Systematic Set Enumeration. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, and W. Swartout, editors, In Proc. of KR'92, pages 539-550. Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.
19. G. Vreeswijk and H. Prakken. Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics. In Proceedings of JELIA'2000, vol. 1919 of LNAI. Springer, 2000.