Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks

By Sanjay Modgil. Artificial Intelligence, 2009

460 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A general account of argumentation with preferences (2013, methodology): “Specifically, we : i) posit criteria for defining attack relations, given their dual role in declaratively denoting the mutual incompatibility of the information contained in the attacking arguments, and their dialectical use; ii) motivate the distinction between preference dependent and preference ”
Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results (2011, background): “S”, [36] introduces the concept of reinstatement sets for a (successful w.”
An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments (2010, background): “One would be to let a special designated argument, or perhaps all strict-and-firm arguments, defeat any argument with an issue premise (as in Modgil (2009) and Prakken and Sartor (1997) ).”