Abduction in argumentation frameworks

References

• Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., & Moraitis, P. (2007). A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, Honolulu, Hawaii (pp. 1018–1025).
   Google Scholar
• Baroni, P., & Giacomin, M. (2009). Semantics of abstract argument systems. In I. Rahwan & G. R. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 25–44). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Baumann, R. (2012). What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 20th European conference on artificial intelligence, Montpellier, France (pp. 127–132). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumann, R., & Brewka, G. (2010). Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, frontiers in AI and applications, Desenzano del Garda, Italy (Vol. 216, pp. 75–86). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bex, F. J., & Prakken, H. (2008). Investigating stories in a formal dialogue game. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument, frontiers in AI and applications, Toulouse, France (Vol. 172, pp. 73–84). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bex, F. J., Prakken, H., & Verheij, B. (2007). Formalising argumentation story-based analysis of evidence. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, California, USA (pp. 1–10).
   Google Scholar
• Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. (2013). Enforcement in argumentation is a kind of update. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference scalable uncertainty management, Washington, DC, USA (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 8078, pp. 30–43). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Boella, G., Kaci, S., & Van der Torre, L. (2009a). Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension. In Proceedings of the 8th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, Budapest, Hungary (pp. 1213–1214).
   Google Scholar
• Boella, G., Kaci, S., & Van der Torre, L. (2009b). Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Abstract principles and the grounded extension. In Proceedings of the 10th European conference on symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty, Verona, Italy (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5590, pp. 107–118). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bondarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R. A., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63–101. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth, R., Gabbay, D., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., & Van der Torre, L. (2014). Abduction and dialogical proof in argumentation and logic programming. In Proceedings of the 21st European conference on artificial intelligence, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 117–122).
   Google Scholar
• Caminada, M., & Gabbay, D. M. (2009). A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica, 93, 109–145. doi: 10.1007/s11225-009-9218-x
   Google Scholar
• Caminada, M., Sá, S., Alcântara, J., & Dvořák, W. (2015). On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 58, 87–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2014.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caminada, M., & Sakama, C. (2015). On the issue of argumentation and informedness. In New frontiers in artificial intelligence, Kanagawa, Japan (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 10091, pp. 317–330). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. (2010). Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 38, 49–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DARPA (2016). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), DARPA-BAA-16-53. Retrieved from https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/DARPA-BAA-16-53.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dung, P. M. (1991). Negation as hypothesis: An abductive foundation for logic programming. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on logic programming, Paris, France (pp. 3–17). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R. A., & Toni, F. (2009). Assumption-based argumentation. In I. Rahwan, & G. R. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 199–218). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dvořák, W., & Woltran, S. (2011). On the intertranslatability of argumentation semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 41, 445–475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eiter, T., Leone, N., & Saccá, D. (1997). On the partial semantics for disjunctive deductive databases. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 19, 59–96. doi: 10.1023/A:1018947420290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falappa, M. A., Kern-Isberner, G., & Simari, G. R. (2002). Explanations, belief revision and defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 141, 1–28. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00258-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1988). The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference and symposium on logic programming, Washington, USA (pp. 1070–1080). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S., Rotolo, A., & Cristani, M. (2014). Strategic argumentation is NP-complete. In Proceedings of the 21st European conference on artificial intelligence, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 399–404).
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, W. (1992). Critical thinking: An introduction to the basic skills. New York: Broadview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Inoue, K., & Sakama, C. (1995). Abductive framework for nonmonotonic theory change. In Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (pp. 204–210).
   Google Scholar
• Kakas, A. C., Kowalski, R. A., & Toni, F. (1992). Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(6), 719–770. doi: 10.1093/logcom/2.6.719
   Google Scholar
• Kakas, A. C., & Mancarella, P. (1990). Database updates through abduction. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on very large databases, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (pp. 650–661).
   Google Scholar
• Kakas, A. C., & Moraitis, P. (2002). Argumentative agent deliberation, roles and context. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 70, 39–53. doi: 10.1016/S1571-0661(04)80587-5
   Google Scholar
• Kakas, A. C., & Moraitis, P. (2006). Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, Hakodate, Japan (pp. 384–391).
   Google Scholar
• Lam, H.-P., Governatori, G., & Riveret, R. (2016). On ASPIC+ and defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on computational models of argument, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, Potsdam, Germany (Vol. 287, pp. 359–370). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayes, G. R. (2010). Argument-explanation complementarity and the structure of informal reasoning. Informal Logic, 30, 92–111. doi: 10.22329/il.v30i1.419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osorio, M., Carballido, J. L., & Zepeda, C. (2016). Defining stage argumentation semantics in terms of an abducible semantics. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 328, 59–71. doi: 10.1016/j.entcs.2016.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 1009–1040. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exi046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Przymusinski, T. C. (1990). The well-founded semantics coincides with the three-valued stable semantics. Fundamenta Informaticae, 13, 445–463.
   Google Scholar
• Rotstein, N. D., Moguillansky, M. O., Falappa, M. A., García, A. J., & Simari, G. R. (2008). Argument theory change: Revision upon warrant. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, Toulouse, France (Vol. 172, pp. 336–347). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sakama, C. (2012). Dishonest arguments in debate games. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on computational models of argument, frontiers in AI and applications, Vienna, Austria (Vol. 245, pp. 177–184). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sakama, C. (2013). Abduction in argumentation frameworks and its use in debate games. In New frontiers in artificial intelligence, Kanagawa, Japan (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 8417, pp. 285–303). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sakama, C., & Inoue, K. (2003). An abductive framework for computing knowledge base updates. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 3, 671–715. doi: 10.1017/S1471068403001716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šešelja, D., & Straßer, C. (2013). Abstract argumentation and explanation applied to scientific debates. Synthese, 190(12), 2195–2217. doi: 10.1007/s11229-011-9964-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Gelder, A., Ross, K., & Schlipf, J. S. (1991). The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM, 38, 619–649. doi: 10.1145/116825.116838
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakaki, T., Nitta, K., & Sawamura, H. (2010). Computing abductive argumentation in answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, Taipei, Taiwan (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6057, pp. 195–215). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2009). Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. In I. Rahwan & G. R. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 1–22). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, Y., Caminada, M., & Gabbay, D. M. (2009). Complete extensions in argumentation coincides with 3-valued stable models in logic programming. Studia Logica, 93(2–3), 383–403. doi: 10.1007/s11225-009-9210-5
   Google Scholar
• You, J.-H., & Yuan, L.-Y. (1994). A three-valued semantics for deductive databases and logic programs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 49, 334–361. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0000(05)80053-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar