Computing ideal sceptical argumentation

By P. M. Dung, P. Mancarella, Francesca Toni. Artificial Intelligence, 2007

452 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 Logical Account of Formal Argumentation (2009, background): “Several criteria of acceptance have been stated, including grounded, complete, preferred and stable semantics [12], as well as more recent approaches like semi-stable semantics [10] and ideal semantics [13].”
Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (2010, background): “Several alternative proposals exist like semi-stable (Caminada 2006) and ideal (Dung, Mancarella, and Toni 2007) semantics.”
Semi-stable semantics (2006, background): “We observe that the lower bound on casse shows that this decision problem is at least as hard as the analogous problem in the ideal semantics of [26] as shown in [28], while the upper bound for sasse matches that of sceptical reasoning w.”
An introduction to argumentation semantics (2011, methodology): “In Proposition 17, the equivalence between points 1 and 2 follows from Dung et al .”
Argumentation in artificial intelligence (2007, methodology): “in this volume [76] offers a further example of dialogue approaches by adapting these to the computation of ideal extensions in ABFs.”