Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, 2009. ,
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, vol.77, pp.321-357, 1995. ,
Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system, Information systems, vol.26, issue.4, pp.259-277, 2001. ,
Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions, Journal of Logic in Computation, vol.13, pp.319-346, 2003. ,
Towards a new framework for recursive interactions in abstract bipolar argumentation, Proc. of COMMA, pp.191-198, 2016. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01474908
Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames, Studia Logica, vol.93, pp.357-381, 2009. ,
Valid attacks in argumentation frameworks with recursive attacks, Proc. of Commonsense Reasoning, vol.2052, 2017. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01709146
On the acceptability semantics of argumentation frameworks with recursive attack and support, Proc. of COMMA, pp.231-242, 2016. ,
Argumentation frameworks with recursive attacks and evidence-based support, Proc. of FoIKS, pp.150-169, 2018. ,
On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics, Int. Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol.58, pp.87-111, 2015. ,
The attack as strong negation, part I, Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol.23, issue.6, pp.881-941, 2015. ,
Encoding argument graphs in logic, Proc of IPMU, pp.345-354, 2014. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01147220
Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation), Intl. J. of Approximate Reasoning, vol.75, pp.57-92, 2016. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-01372745
Logical encoding of argumentation frameworks with higher-order attacks, Proc. of ICTAI, 2018. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02181912
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, vol.77, pp.321-357, 1995. ,
Valid attacks in Argumentation Frameworks with Recursive Attacks (long version), IRIT, 2019. ,
Molecular Interaction Automated Maps, Proc. of LNMR, pp.31-42, 2013. ,
Reasoning on molecular interaction maps, Proc. of ESCIM, pp.263-269, 2015. ,
SESAME -A System for Specifying Semantics in Abstract Argumentation, Proc. of SAFA, pp.40-51, 2016. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01475020
On the logic of argumentation theory, Proc. of AAMAS, pp.409-416, 2010. ,
A QBF-based formalization of abstract argumentation semantics, Journal of Applied Logic, vol.11, issue.2, pp.229-252, 2013. ,
Advanced SAT techniques for abstract argumentation, Proc. of CLIMA, pp.138-154, 2013. ,
Computing preferred extensions in abstract argumentation: A SAT-based approach, Proc. of TAFA, pp.176-193, 2014. ,
Declarative solver development: Case studies, Proc. of KR, pp.74-83, 2016. ,
Abstract dialectical frameworks, Proc. of KR, pp.102-111, 2010. ,
A software system using a SAT solver for reasoning under complete, stable, preferred, and grounded argumentation semantics, Proc. of KI, pp.241-248, 2015. ,
Coquiaas: A constraint-based quick abstract argumentation solver, Proc. of ICTAI, pp.928-935, 2015. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02380767
Supp(?) U nSupp(?) } Prop 3 produces the following structures: Conflict-free structures: 98 structures are conflict-free among the 128 possible structures; are not conflict-free structures containing together a, b and ?, or those containing d, ?, ?. Admissible structures, nSupp(c) ? Supp(?) U nSupp(?) ? Supp(?) U nSupp(?) } Prop 3 produces the following structures: Conflict-free structures: all structures are conflict-free except those containing together c, ? and ? (so 4 structures are not conflict-free) ,
Acc(b) ? eAcc(b) eAcc(b) ? Acc(b) eAcc(b) ? Supp(b) Supp(c) Acc(c) ? eAcc(c) eAcc(c) ? Acc(c) eAcc(c) ? Supp(c) Supp(d) Acc(d) ? eAcc(d) eAcc(d) ? Acc(d) eAcc(d) ? Supp(d) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ?, Acc(a) ? eAcc(a) eAcc(a) ? Acc(a) eAcc(a) ? Supp(a) Supp(b) ,
, Supp(a) U nSupp(a) ? Supp(b) U nSupp(b) ? Supp(c) U nSupp(c) ? Supp(d) U nSupp(d) ? Supp(?) U nSupp(?) ? Supp(?) U nSupp(?) ? Supp(?) U nSupp
, Prop 3 produces the following structures: Conflict-free structures: there are 89 among the 128 possible structures; are not conflict-free structures that contain together a, b and ?, or those containing c, ?, ?, or those containing d, ?, ?. Admissible structures
Acc(b) ? eAcc(a) Acc(b) ? eV al(?) Acc(a) ? eAcc(c) Acc(a) ? eV al(?) Acc(c) ? eAcc(b) Acc(c) ,
, Supp(?) U nSupp(?) } Prop 3 produces the following structures: Conflict-free structures: there are 45 among the 64 possible structures; are not conflict-free structures that contain together a, b and ?, or those containing b, c and ?, or those containing a, c and ?, Supp(a) U nSupp(a) ? Supp(b) U nSupp(b) ? Supp(c) U nSupp(c) ? Supp(?) U nSupp(?) ? Supp(?) U nSupp(?) ?
And so the following results will not be correct ,
, And the complete, grounded and preferred structure is, Consider the following REBAF
Supp(c) Acc(c) ? eAcc(c) eAcc(c) ? Acc(c) eAcc(c) ? Supp(c) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) eV al(?) eAcc(a) ? Supp(b) eV al(?) eAcc(b) ? Supp(c) eV al(?) eAcc(c) ? Supp(a) ? Supp(?) ? Supp(?) ? Supp(?) } ? ss = ? ? { Supp(b) ? eV al(?) Supp(b) ? eAcc(a) Supp(c) ? eV al(?) Supp(c) ? eAcc(b) Supp(a) ? eV al(?) Supp(a) ? eAcc(c) U nSupp(?) ? U nSupp(?) ? U nSupp(?) ? U nSupp(a) ? U nSupp(c) U nSupp(?) U nSupp(?) ? U nSupp(a) U nSupp(c) ? U nSupp(a) U nSupp(b) ? U nSupp(a) U nSupp(?) U nSupp(?) ? U nSupp(b) U nSupp(a) ? U nSupp(b) U nSupp(c) ? U nSupp(b) U nSupp(?) U nSupp(?) ? U nSupp(c) U nSupp(b) ? U nSupp(c) } ? {, Acc(a) ? eAcc(a) eAcc(a) ? Acc(a) eAcc(a) ? Supp(a) Supp(b) Acc(b) ? eAcc(b) eAcc(b) ? Acc(b) eAcc(b) ? Supp(b) ,
, And the complete, grounded and preferred structure is: [alpha, beta, delta] Example 15 (cont'd): Consider the following REBAF. a ? ? = { Supp(a) Acc(a) ? eAcc(a) eAcc(a) ? Acc(a) eAcc(a) ? Supp(a) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) eV al(?) eAcc(a) ? Supp(a) ? Supp(?) } ? ss = ? ? { Supp(a) ? eV al(?) Supp(a) ? eAcc(a) U nSupp(?) ? U nSupp(a) ? U nSupp(a) U nSupp(?) U nSupp
Acc(b) ? eAcc(b) eAcc(b) ? Acc(b) eAcc(b) ? Supp(b) Supp(c) Acc(c) ? eAcc(c) eAcc(c) ? Acc(c) eAcc(c) ? Supp(c) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) eV al(?) eAcc(a) ? Supp(b) eV al(?) eAcc(b) ? Supp(a) eV al(?) eAcc(a) ? Supp(c) ? Supp(?) ? Supp(?) ? Supp(?) } ? ss = ? ? { Supp(b) ? eV al(?) Supp(b) ? eAcc(a) Supp(a) ? eV al(?) Supp(a) ? eAcc(b) Supp(c) ? eV al(?) Supp(c) ? eAcc(a) U nSupp(?) ? U nSupp(?) ? U nSupp, Acc(a) ? eAcc(a) eAcc(a) ? Acc(a) eAcc(a) ? Supp(a) Supp(b) ,
, Preferred structures: [ a, b, c, alpha, beta, delta ] Grounded structure: [ alpha, beta, delta ] Complete structures, Nevertheless, the four last structures are not admissible. And so the following results will not be correct
, Acc(b) ? eAcc(b) eAcc(b) ? Acc(b) eAcc(b) ? Supp(b) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) eV al(?) ? V al(?) eV al(?) ? Supp(?) Supp(?) V al(?) ? eV al(?) [ c, beta, delta, And the complete, grounded and preferred structure is: { Supp(a) Acc(a) ? eAcc(a) eAcc(a) ? Acc(a) eAcc(a) ? Supp(a) Supp(b)