Clarifying some misconceptions on the ASPIC+ framework

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 245, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 442-453

  Prakken, Henry ^a   Modgil, Sanjay ^b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation frameworks; Rationality postulates

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATION; ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; RATIONALITY POSTULATES;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 84876208033     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-111-3-442     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. L. Amgoud. Five weaknesses of ASPIC+. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Processing and Managing of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. LNAI, Springer Verlag, 2012.
2. L. Amgoud and P. Besnard. Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty (SUM'09), pages 12-27, 2009.
3. L. Amgoud and P. Besnard. A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems. In Proc. 4th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty (SUM'10), pages 42-55, 2010.
4. L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34(1-3):197-215, 2002.
5. T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13:429-448, 2003.
6. P. Besnard and A. Hunter. Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, 2008.
7. 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.
8. M. Caminada and L. Amgoud. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171(5-6):286-310, 2007.
9. M. Caminada,W. Carnielli, and P.E. Dunne. Semi-stable semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation, to appear.
10. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-358, 1995.
11. A.J. Garcia and G.R. Simari. Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4:95-138, 2004.
12. T.F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D.N. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171:875-896, 2007.
13. N. Gorogiannis and A. Hunter. Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence, 175:1479-1497, 2011.
14. S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, and M. Magidor. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44:167 -207, 1990.
15. S. Modgil and H. Prakken. Revisiting preferences and argumentation. In IJCAI 2011, pp. 1021-1026.
16. S. Modgil and H. Prakken. A general account of argumentation with preferences: Technical report. http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/smodgil/GAP.pdf, 2012.
17. J. L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11:481-518, 1987.
18. J. L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, 1995.
19. H. Prakken. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1(2):93-124, 2010.
20. B. van Gijzel and H. Prakken. Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-11), pages 1113-1119, 2011.
21. B. van Gijzel and H. Prakken. Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Argument and Computation, 1:21-47, 2012.
22. G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90:225-279, 1997.