Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks

DOI10.1023/A:1021603608656zbMath1056.68589OpenAlexW1602796727MaRDI QIDQ1869617

Claudette Cayrol, Leila Amgoud

Publication date: 28 April 2003

Published in: Journal of Automated Reasoning (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021603608656

zbMATH Keywords

preference relationsargumentationhandling inconsistency

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Theory of languages and software systems (knowledge-based systems, expert systems, etc.) for artificial intelligence (68T35)

Related Items (41)

Gödel semantics of fuzzy argumentation frameworks with consistency degrees ⋮ Argumentation update in YALLA (yet another logic language for argumentation) ⋮ A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: Formalization and logical properties ⋮ Using arguments for making and explaining decisions ⋮ Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks ⋮ Probabilistic argumentation ⋮ An argumentation system for defeasible reasoning ⋮ Weighted argumentation for analysis of discussions in Twitter ⋮ Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks ⋮ Minimal hypotheses: extension-based semantics to argumentation ⋮ Integrated preference argumentation and applications in consumer behaviour analyses ⋮ Fundamental properties of attack relations in structured argumentation with priorities ⋮ Conflict-free and conflict-tolerant semantics for constrained argumentation frameworks ⋮ Generating possible intentions with constrained argumentation systems ⋮ The burden of persuasion in abstract argumentation ⋮ Integrating individual preferences into collective argumentation ⋮ On the Acceptability of Incompatible Arguments ⋮ Towards an Extensible Argumentation System ⋮ On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks ⋮ Valued preference-based instantiation of argumentation frameworks with varied strength defeats ⋮ A Persuasion Dialog for Gaining Access to Information ⋮ Preferences and Assumption-Based Argumentation for Conflict-Free Normative Agents ⋮ Arguing and Explaining Classifications ⋮ SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics ⋮ Revealed preference in argumentation: algorithms and applications ⋮ Arguing with Valued Preference Relations ⋮ t-DeLP: an argumentation-based temporal defeasible logic programming framework ⋮ Assessing the epistemological relevance of Dung-style argumentation theories ⋮ Formalizing argumentative reasoning in a possibilistic logic programming setting with fuzzy unification ⋮ Preference-based argumentation: arguments supporting multiple values ⋮ Argumentation Theory and Decision Aiding ⋮ An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases ⋮ A review of the relations between logical argumentation and reasoning with maximal consistency ⋮ Evaluation of argument strength in attack graphs: foundations and semantics ⋮ On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms ⋮ On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems ⋮ Handling controversial arguments ⋮ Ensuring reference independence and cautious monotony in abstract argumentation ⋮ A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks ⋮ A Relaxation of Internal Conflict and Defence in Weighted Argumentation Frameworks ⋮ Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks

This page was built for publication: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks