Explaining non-acceptability in abstract argumentation
From MaRDI portal
Recommendations
Cited in
(15)- On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games
- A framework for analysing state-abstraction methods
- Necessary and sufficient explanations for argumentation-based conclusions
- Shedding new light on the foundations of abstract argumentation: modularization and weak admissibility
- Computing smallest MUSes of quantified Boolean formulas
- Explanations of non-monotonic inference in admissibility-based abstract argumentation
- On explanations for non-acceptable arguments
- Abstract argumentation in artificial intelligence: problems of interpretation and suitability of semantics in decision making
- CONCILIATORY REASONING, SELF-DEFEAT, AND ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATION
- Explainable acceptance in probabilistic and incomplete abstract argumentation frameworks
- Minimality, necessity and sufficiency for argumentation and explanation
- Change in quantitative bipolar argumentation: sufficient, necessary, and counterfactual explanations
- On pluralistic methods for explaining argument acceptance in abstract argumentation
- A tutorial in proof-theoretic approaches to logical argumentation
- On generalized notions of consistency and reinstatement and their preservation in formal argumentation
This page was built for publication: Explaining non-acceptability in abstract argumentation
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4999292)
