An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 144, Issue , 2006, Pages 109-120

  Vreeswijk, Gerard A W ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

algorithm; Argumentation; complexity

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY;

ANALYSIS TOOLS; ARGUMENT SYSTEMS; ARGUMENTATION; COMPLEXITY; COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS; CORRECTNESS PROOFS; QUERY ANSWERING; SEARCH PROCESS; VISUALIZATION TOOLS;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 84940469389     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, and C. S. Carr, editors. Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer-Verlag, London, 2002.
2. C. A. Reed and G. W. A. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int. Journal of AI Tools, 14(3-4):961-980, 2004.
3. C. I. Chesñevar, A. G. Maguitman, and R. P. Loui. Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4):337-383, 2000.
4. J. L. Pollock. How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence, 57:1-42, 1992.
5. H. Prakken and G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 4, pages 218-319. Kluwer, 2nd edition, 2002.
6. Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, and F. Toni. Finding admissible and preferred arguments can be very hard. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 53-61. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.
7. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence, 141(12):187-203, 2002.
8. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence, 149(2):221-250, 2003.
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. P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 170(2):114-159, 2006.
11. H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 53-62, New York, 1999. ACM Press.
12. H. B. Verheij. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2):291-324, 2003.
13. M. Caminada. On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In Proc. of the 10th European Conf. on Logics in AI (JELIA06). To appear., September 2006.
14. 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):321-357, 1995.
15. S. Doutre and J. Mengin. On sceptical vs. credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems. In 10th Int. Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), pages 134-139, 2004.
16. S. van den Braak and G. A. W. Vreeswijk. A knowledge representation architecture for the construction of stories based on interpretation and evidence. (To appear.). In 6th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA), 2006.
17. Y. Dimopoulos and A. Torres. Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science, 170:209-244, 1996.
18. E. Nudelman. Empirical Approach to the Complexity of Hard Problems. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, October 2005.
19. P. C. Cheeseman, B. Kanefsky, and W. M. Taylor. Where the really hard problems are. In J. Mylopoulos and R. Reiter, editors, Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91). Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.
20. B. Selman, D. G. Mitchell, and H. J. Levesque. Generating hard satisfiability problems. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1-2):17-29, 2003.