The complexity of Boolean networks
The complexity of Boolean networks
ASSAT: computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers
Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on nonmonotonic reasoning
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks
International Journal of Intelligent Systems - Bipolar Representations of Information and Preference Part 2: Reasoning and Learning
Carneades and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: A Reconstruction
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks
ECSQARU'05 Proceedings of the 8th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
Analyzing open source license compatibility issues with Carneades
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
On the intertranslatability of argumentation semantics
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation
IJCAI'11 Proceedings of the Twenty-Second international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume Volume Two
An approach to argumentation considering attacks through time
SUM'12 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management
Automata for infinite argumentation structures
Artificial Intelligence
Approximating operators and semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks
Artificial Intelligence
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
One criticism often advanced against abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs), is that these consider only one form of interaction between atomic arguments: specifically that an argument attacks another. Attempts to broaden the class of relationships include bipolar frameworks, where arguments support others, and abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). The latter, allow "acceptance" of an argument, x, to be predicated on a given propositional function, Cx, dependent on the corresponding acceptance of its parents, i.e. those y for which 〈y, x〉 occurs. Although offering a richly expressive formalism subsuming both standard and bipolar AFs, an issue that arises with ADFs is whether this expressiveness is achieved in a manner that would be infeasible within standard AFs. Can the semantics used in ADFs be mapped to some AF semantics? How many arguments are needed in an AF to "simulate" an ADF? We show that (in a formally defined sense) any ADF can be simulated by an AF of similar size and that this translation can be realised by a polynomial time algorithm.