Abstract and Concrete Decision Graphs for Choosing Extensions of Argumentation Frameworks - Technical Report

Baroni and Giacomin [2007] show that grounded and p-grounded semantics sat- isfy strong admissibility and that complete, preferred, stable, semi-stable, ideal, p- complete,

We have shown how the ranking construction paradigm for default reasoning can be exploited to interpret abstract ar- gumentation frameworks and to specify corresponding ex-

Summarizing, this logic of meta-argumentation allows us to specify and verify complex requirements for extended frameworks, such as extended argumentation frameworks with higher

[2012] propose some rationality properties for characterizing aggregation of sets of argumentation frame- works, based on translations of properties coming from social choice theory

• Coalitions of Arguments Here we aim to model the fact the n decisions of any expert on the n criteria of the problem at hand belong together: they together form the “support” for

In the first case, both semantics coincide, i.e., the ideal extension of any argumentation framework satisfying the postulates coincides with the grounded extension, which

Probabilistic Bipolar Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (prBAFs), combining the possibility of specifying supports between arguments with a prob- abilistic modeling of the

For instance, in SAT or QBF solving, preprocessing turned out to be a crucial building block for making systems more efficient in practice.. In a nutshell, preprocessing refers to