Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems

Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS

Volumn 1, Issue , 2009, Pages 616-623

  Dunne, Paul E ^a   Parsons, Simon ^b   Hunter, Anthony ^a   McBurney, Peter ^a   Wooldridge, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Complexity; Handling inconsistency

Indexed keywords

BUDGET CONTROL; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

ABSTRACT ARGUMENTS; ARGUMENT SYSTEMS; ARGUMENTATION; COMPLEXITY; HANDLING INCONSISTENCIES; INCONSISTENCY TOLERANCES; NATURAL EXTENSION; RELATIVE STRENGTH;

AUTONOMOUS AGENTS;

EID: 84899833289     PISSN: 15488403     EISSN: 15582914     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. L. Amgoud and C Cayrol. A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34:197-215, 2002.
2. L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In E. Durfee, editor, Proc. 4th International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 31-38, Boston, MA, USA, 2000. IEEE Press.
3. K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, and K. Suzumura, editors. Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare Volume 1. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002.
4. F. Bacchus, A. J. Grove, J. Y. Halpern, and D. Koller. From statistical knowledge bases to degrees of belief. Artificial Intelligence, 87:75-143, 1996.
5. T. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429-448, 2003.
6. T. Bench-Capon, S. Doutre, and P. E. Dunne Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(1):42-71, 2007.
7. T. J.M. Bench-Capon, S. Doutre, and P. E. Dunne. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(1):42-71, 2007.
8. L. Bertossi, A. Hunter, and T. Schaub, editors. Inconsistency Tolerance volume 3300 of LNCS Springer-Verlag, 2004.
9. Ph. Besnard and A. Hunter. Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, 2008.
10. C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Proc. 8th ECSQARU, volume 3571 of LNCS, pages 366-377. Springer-Verlag, 2005.
11. Y. Dimopolous and A. Torres. Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science, 170:209-244, 1996.
12. D. Dubois, J. Lang, and H. Prade. A possibilistic truth-maintenance system with uncertain justifications, and its application to belief revision. In J P. Martins and M. Reinfrank, editors, Truth Maintenance Systems, volume 515 of LNCS, pages 87-106. Springer-Verlag, 1991.
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. E Dunne. Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artificial Intelligence, 171:701-729, 2007.
15. P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence, 141:187-203, 2002.
16. P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang-Gerannson, and J. Fox. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11 (1):113-131, 1995.
17. P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson, and M. Patel. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, volume 1455 of LNCS, pages 138-156. Springer, 1998.
18. D. Martinez, A Garcia, and G. Simari. An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In Proc. KR '08, 2008.
19. P Matt and F. Toni. A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In Proc. JELIA 08 volume 5293 of LNAI, pages 285-297. Springer, 2008.
20. S. Modgil. An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, volume 4724 of LNCS. Springer, 2007.
21. S. Modgil and T. Bench-Capon. Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation. In Proc. COMMA 2008, pages 240-251. IOS Press, 2008.
22. E. Neufeld and D. Poole. Towards solving the multiple extension problem: combining defaults and probability. In L. N. Kanal, T. S. Levitt, and J. F. Lemmer, editors, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 3, pages 35-44. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989.
23. C H. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1994.
24. S. Parsons. Qualitative methods for reasoning under uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
25. S Parsons. On precise and correct qualitative probabilistic reasoning International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 35:111-135, 2004.
26. D. Poole. Probabilistic horn abduction and Bayesian networks. Artificial Intelligence, 64:81-129, 1993.
27. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25-75, 1997.
28. I. Rahwan and K. Larson. Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In Proc. AAAI'08. AAAI Press, 2008.
29. G. Shafer. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1976.
30. W. Spohn. A general non-probabilistic theory of inductive reasoning. In R. D. Shachter, T. S. Levitt, L. N. Kanal, and J. F. Lemmer, editors, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4, pages 149-158. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990.
31. V. Tamma and S. Parsons. Argumentation and qualitative reasoning with kappa calculus. In Proc. 6th ECSQARU, volume 2143 of LNCS, pages 680-691. Springer, 2001.
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. U.S. Federal Register, 51:33991-34003, 24 September 1986.