If nothing is accepted -- repairing argumentation frameworks

DOI10.1613/JAIR.1.11791zbMATH Open1446.68153OpenAlexW2997675395MaRDI QIDQ5207045FDOQ5207045

Authors: Markus Ulbricht, Ringo Baumann 

Publication date: 3 January 2020

Published in: Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.11791

Recommendations

• Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks
• Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks
• The complexity of repairing, adjusting, and aggregating of extensions in abstract argumentation
• Credulous and skeptical acceptance in incomplete argumentation frameworks
• Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Knowledge representation (68T30) Logic in artificial intelligence (68T27)

Cited In (6)

• Topological conditions and solutions for repairing argumentation frameworks
• Shedding new light on the foundations of abstract argumentation: modularization and weak admissibility
• Ensuring reference independence and cautious monotony in abstract argumentation
• Computing smallest MUSes of quantified Boolean formulas
• How can you resolve a trilemma? A topological approach
• Hybrid reasoning on a bipolar argumentation framework

This page was built for publication: If nothing is accepted -- repairing argumentation frameworks

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q5207045)