A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments

By Leila Amgoud, Claudette Cayrol. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 2002

504 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/99b588b5310af2af8fc8f4f45685547af91a9f26

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

Citations in the corpus

Using arguments for making and explaining decisions (2009, background): “Each preference relation x (with x ∈ {e, p, m}) is combined with the conflict relation R x into a unique relation between arguments, denoted by Def x and called defeat relation, in the same way as in ([4], Definition 3.3, page 204).”
The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial (2014, background): “At first sight, it would seem that ASPIC+ can be taken to generate a so-called preference-based argumentation framework (PAF) in the sense of Amgoud and Cayrol (2002), that is, a triple consisting of the set of arguments, the attack relation and the argument ordering.”
On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (2005, background): “Argumentation has been applied in various domains and applications such as plausible inference from inconsistent knowledge bases, decision making and negotiation (see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]).”
A general account of argumentation with preferences (2013, methodology): “Following this, we reconstruct classical logic approaches to argumentation [12, 13, 26], including those that additionally accommodate preferences [5].”
Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks (2009, background): “In Amgoud and Cayrol's Preference based Argumentation Frameworks [3], a Dung framework is augmented with a preference ordering on Args, so that an attack by X on Y is successful only if Y is not preferred to X .”
Argumentation in artificial intelligence (2007, unknown): “11 A different treatment of A forms the basis of Amgoud and Cayrol’s approach in [7] to the interpretative issues created by the presence of multiple preferred extensions.”
An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments (2010, methodology): “This view on Dung's attack relation was, to my knowledge, first used by Prakken and Sartor (1997), it was also employed by Amgoud and Cayrol (2002) and it was the basis of Bench-Capon's (2003) value-based argumentation frameworks.”
On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms (2007, background): “The aim of this section is to present and to discuss three important postulates: direct consistency, indirect consistency and closure, that any rule-based argumentation-based system should satisfy in order to avoid the problems discussed in the previous section.”
Towards an argument interchange format (2006, methodology): “Consequently, ANs are not restricted to tree-like structures as those used for modelling argument games or dialectical proof procedures (Amgoud & Cayrol, 2002}.”