Constructing argument graphs with deductive arguments: a tutorial

References

• Alsinet, T., Chesñevar, C., Godo, L., & Simari, G. (2008). A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: Formalization and logical properties. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 159, 1208–1228. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2007.12.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amgoud, L., & Besnard, Ph. (2009). Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In L. Godo and A. Pugliese (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM’09) (pp. 12–27). Vol. 5785 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Amgoud, L., & Besnard, Ph. (2010). A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems. In A. Deshpande & A. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM’10) (pp. 42–55). Vol. 6379 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Amgoud, L., Besnard, P., & Vesic, S. (2011). Identifying the core of logic-based argumentation systems. In IEEE 23rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, (ICTAI’11) (pp. 633–636). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Amgoud, L., & Cayrol, C. (2002). A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34, 197–215. doi: 10.1023/A:1014490210693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amgoud, L., & Vesic, S. (2010). Handling inconsistency with preference-based argumentation. In A. Deshpande & A. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM’10) (pp. 56–69). Vol. 6379 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Baroni, P., & Giacomin, M. (2007). On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 675–700. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., Gregoire, E., Piette, C., & Raddaoui, B. (2010). Mus-based generation of arguments and counter-arguments. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI’10) (pp. 239–244). IEEE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., Gregoire, E., & Raddaoui, B. (2013). A conditional logic-based argumentation framework. In W. Liu, V. Subrahmanian, & J. Wijsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM’13) (pp. 44–56). Vol. 7958 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2001). A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 128, 203–235. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00071-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2005). Practical first-order argumentation. In Proceedings of the 20th American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’2005) (pp. 590–595). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of argumentation. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Besnard, P., Hunter, A., & Woltran, S. (2009). Encoding deductive argumentation in quantified Boolean formulae. Artificial Intelligence, 173, 1406–1423. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2009.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, E., Hunter, A., & Pan, J. (2009). An argument-based approach to using multiple ontologies. In Third international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM’09) (pp. 68–79). Vol. 5785 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cayrol, C. (1995). On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In Proceedings of the fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95) Morgan Kaufmann, (pp. 1443–1448).
   Google Scholar
• Creignou, N., Schmidt, J., Thomas, M., & Woltran, S. (2011). Complexity of logic-based argumentation in Post's framework. Argument & Computation, 2, 107–129. doi: 10.1080/19462166.2011.629736
   Google Scholar
• Dung, P. (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
• Efstathiou, V., & Hunter, A. (2011). Algorithms for generating arguments and counterarguments in propositional logic. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 52, 672–704. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2011.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eiter, T., & Gottlob, G. (1995). The complexity of logic-based abduction. Journal of the ACM, 42, 3–42. doi: 10.1145/200836.200838
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elvang-Gøransson, M., & Hunter, A. (1995). Argumentative logics: Reasoning with classically inconsistent information. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 16, 125–145. doi: 10.1016/0169-023X(95)00013-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P., & Fox, J. (1993). Acceptability of arguments as “logical uncertainty". In M. Clarke, R. Kruse, & S. Moral (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQARU’93) (pp. 85–90). Vol. 747 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• García, A., & Simari, G. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4, 95–138. doi: 10.1017/S1471068403001674
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorogiannis, N., & Hunter, A. (2011). Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 1479–1497. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2010.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Governatori, G., Maher, M., Antoniou, G., & Billington, D. (2004). Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14, 675–702. doi: 10.1093/logcom/14.5.675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haenni, R. (1998). Modelling uncertainty with propositional assumptions-based systems. In Applications of uncertainty formalisms (pp. 446–470). Vol. 1455 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Haenni, R. (2001). Cost-bounded argumentation. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 26, 101–127. doi: 10.1016/S0888-613X(00)00063-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsch, R., & Gorogiannis, N. (2009). The complexity of the warranted formula problem in propositional argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 20, 481–499. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exp074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, A. (2004a). Towards higher impact argumentation. In Proceedings of the 19th national conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004) (pp. 275–280). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, A. (2004b). Making argumentation more believable. In Proceedings of the 19th national conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004) (pp. 269–274). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, A. (2008). Reasoning about the appropriateness of proponents for arguments. In Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’08) (pp. 89–94). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, A. (2010). Base logics in argumentation. In P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, & G. Simari (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’10) (pp. 275–286). Vol. 216 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, A. (2013). A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54, 47–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2012.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, A., & Woltran, S. (2013) Structural properties for deductive argument systems. In L. van der Gaag (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQARU’13) (pp. 278–289). Vol. 7958 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kowalski, R. (1975). A proof procedure using connection graphs. Journal of the ACM, 22, 572–595. doi: 10.1145/321906.321919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kowalski, R. (1979). Logic for problem solving. North-Holland Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Liao, B., Jin, L., & Koons, R. (2011). Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 1790–1814. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2011.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, N., & Hunter, A. (2008). Argumentation using temporal knowledge. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, & A. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA’08) (pp. 204–215). Vol. 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martinez, D., Garcia, A., & Simari, G. (2008). An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In G. Brewka and and J. Lang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’08) (pp. 135–144). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription: A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 23–79.
   Google Scholar
• Moguillansky, M., Wassermann, R., & Falappa, M. (2010). An argumentation machinery to reason over inconsistent ontologies (Vol. 6433, pp. 100–109). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., & Amgoud, L. (2003). Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 347–376. doi: 10.1093/logcom/13.3.347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481–518. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. (1992). How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence, 57, 1–42. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(92)90103-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, M., Dunne, P., & Parsons, S. (2006). On the complexity of linking deductive and abstract argument systems. In Proceedings of the 21st national conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’06) (pp. 299–304). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2005). On the meta-logic of arguments. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 42–56). Vol. 4049 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., & Lin, Z. (2013). An argumentation framework for description logic ontology reasoning and management. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 40, 375–403. doi: 10.1007/s10844-012-0230-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., Zhang, Z., Xu, D., & Lin, Z. (2010). Argumentation-based reasoning with inconsistent knowledge bases (Vol. 6085, pp. 87–99). Springer.
   Google Scholar