On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms

By Martin Wigbertus Antonius Caminada, Leila Amgoud. Artificial Intelligence, 2007

514 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e96ea8a232ebf545087d38bf4bc34b602e2f68c6

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

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

Argumentation in artificial intelligence (2007, background): “13 Important as such questions are, it may well be the case, however, that treatments of extension-based semantics will come to focus less on the construction of novel specialised forms and more on consolidation theories such as the evaluative principles of [22] or the complementary approach applied”
A general account of argumentation with preferences (2013, methodology): “[18] refer to this as a restricted rebut, and show for a special case of ASPIC that if the restriction is lifted so as to allow A to rebut B, then this would lead to violation of of [18]’s rationality postulates.”
A two-phase method for extracting explanatory arguments from Bayesian networks (2017, result): “This means that all known [25] results regarding rationality postulates [26] on ASPIC+ also hold for our argumentation theory.”
An introduction to argumentation semantics (2011, methodology): “In Caminada and Amgoud (2007), it is proved that, under the right procedure of argument construction, admissibility of a set of arguments is a condition that is strong enough to yield consistent conclusions of this set.”
A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation (2009, background): “Formal argumentation has become a popular approach for purposes varying from nonmonotonic reasoning [2, 7], multi-agent communication [1] and reasoning in the semantic web [23].”
Semi-stable semantics (2006, background): “This is in line with [15] in which a number of postulates is provided whose satisfaction depends on the argumentation semantics as well as on how the arguments are constructed.”
The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial (2014, methodology): “2In this paper we use ⊃ to denote the material implication connective of classical logic. proposed by Caminada and Amgoud (2007) are satisfied; for example, that the conclusions of arguments in the same extension are mutually consistent (we will define below what this means) and are closed under…”
Normative Practical Reasoning via Argumentation and Dialogue (2016, methodology): “Among the proposed semantics are the credulous preferred semantics which several authors have suggested [Caminada, 2006; Prakken, 2006; Oren, 2013] are appropriate for reasoning about actions.”