Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks

Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 105-129

  Modgil, Sanjay ^a   Caminada, Martin ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885728961     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_6     Document Type: Chapter

References (28)

1. 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. (Pubitemid 37133007)
2. H. Barringer, D. M. Gabbay and J. Woods. Temporal Dynamics of Support and Attack Networks: From Argumentation to Zoology. Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, 59-98, 2005. (Pubitemid 350227621)
3. A. Bondarenko and P.M. Dung and R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93:63-101, 1997. (Pubitemid 127401113)
4. M. Caminada. For the sake of the Argument. Explorations into argument-based reasoning. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam, 2004.
5. M. Caminada. On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In European Conference on Logic in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), 111-123, 2006. (Pubitemid 44576962)
6. M. Caminada. An Algorithm for Computing Semi-stable Semantics. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), 222-234, 2007.
7. M. Caminada and Y.Wu. Towards an Argument Game for Stable Semantics. In Computational Models of Natural Argument, to appear, 2008.
8. C. Cayrol, S. Doutre and J. Mengin. Dialectical Proof Theories for the Credulous Preferred Semantics of Argumentation Frameworks. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), 668-679, 2001. (Pubitemid 33334713)
9. C. Cayrol, S. Doutre and J. Mengin. On Decision Problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 377-403, 2003.
10. C. Cayrol and M. Lagasquie-Schiex. On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), 378-389, 2005.
11. C. Cayrol and M.-Ch. Lagasquie-Schiex. Graduality in argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 23:245-297, 2005. (Pubitemid 41525870)
12. S. Doutre and J. Mengin. On sceptical vs credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems. In Ninth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2004), 462-473, 2004. (Pubitemid 41049956)
13. 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.
14. P.M. Dung, P. Mancarella and F. Toni. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 171(10-15):642-674, 2007. (Pubitemid 47285080)
15. P.M. Dung and P.M. Thang. A Sound and Complete Dialectical Proof Procedure for Sceptical Preferred Argumentation. In Proc. of the LPNMR-Workshop on Argumentation and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (ArgNMR07), 49-63, 2007.
16. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Two Party Immediate Response Disputes: Properties and Efficiency. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 149(2),221-250, 2003.
17. H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Dialectic Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 53-62, 1999.
18. P. Lorenzen. Dialectical foundations of logical calculi. Constructive Philosophy, Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 1987.
19. P. Lorenzen and K.Lorenz". Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1978.
20. S. Modgil. Reasoning About Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 173(9-10), 901-934, 2009.
21. S. Modgil and M. Caminada. Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, King's College London, www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/sta f f/modgilsa/Proo f TheoriesAlgorithms.pd f , 2008.
22. S. Nielsen and S. Parsons. A generalization of Dung's abstract framework for argumentation: Arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In Proc. Third International Workshop on Argumentation in Multiagent Systems (ArgMAS 2006), 54-73, 2006.
23. J. L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
24. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7:25-75, 1997.
25. B. Verheij. A Labeling Approach to the Computation of Credulous Acceptance in Argumentation. In International Joint Conference on Aritificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 623-628, 2007.
26. G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Defeasible dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3:3-27, 1993.
27. G. A. W. Vreeswijk. An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In Proc. 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 109-120, 2006.
28. G. A. W. Vreeswijk and H. Prakken. Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In Proc. 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence, 239-253, 2000.