{"type":"ScholarlyArticle","title":"General Epistemic Abstract Argumentation Framework: Semantics and Complexity","authors":[{"name":"Gianvincenzo Alfano","slug":"gianvincenzo-alfano","given":"Gianvincenzo","family":"Alfano","affiliation":"DIMES Department , University of Calabria , Rende , Italy"},{"name":"Sergio Greco","slug":"sergio-greco","given":"Sergio","family":"Greco","affiliation":"DIMES Department , University of Calabria , Rende , Italy"},{"name":"Francesco Parisi","slug":"francesco-parisi","given":"Francesco","family":"Parisi","affiliation":"DIMES Department , University of Calabria , Rende , Italy"},{"name":"Irina Trubitsyna","slug":"irina-trubitsyna","given":"Irina","family":"Trubitsyna","affiliation":"DIMES Department , University of Calabria , Rende , Italy"}],"abstract":"Epistemic Abstract Argumentation Framework (EAAF) extends Dung's framework (AAF)---a central formalism in AI for modeling disputes among agents---by allowing the representation of epistemic knowledge.\r\nIn particular, EAAF augments AAF with weak and strong epistemic attacks whose intuitive meaning is that \r\nan argument a defeats an argument b by means of a weak (resp. strong) epistemic attack if a is true in every (resp. at least one) extension. \r\nSo far, the semantics of EAAF has been defined only for a restricted class of frameworks, namely acyclic EAAF, where epistemic attacks do not occur in any cycle.\r\nIn this paper, we provide an intuitive semantics for (general) EAAF  that naturally extends that for AAF as well as that for acyclic EAAF.\r\nAfter providing some fundamental properties and giving an algorithm that enables the computation of EAAF semantics, by relying on state-of-the-art AAF-solvers, we investigate the complexity of canonical argumentation problems.","doi":"10.24963/ijcai.2024/355","url":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/355","pdf":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/0355.pdf","markdown":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/355.md","bibtex":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/bibtex/355","volume":{"slug":"2024","title":"Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"IJCAI 2024","url":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/","year":2024,"location":"Jeju, Korea","dates":"3-9 August 2024","editors":"Kate Larson","isbn":"978-1-956792-04-1","publisher":"International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization","doi_prefix":"10.24963/ijcai.2024"},"section":"Knowledge Representation and Reasoning","track":"Main Track","number":355,"pages":{"first":3206,"last":3214},"keywords":["Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: KRR: Argumentation"],"videos":[],"references":[{"position":1,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2022a] G. Alfano, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. Incomplete argumentation frameworks: Properties and complexity. In Proc. of the AAAI Conf., pages 5451-5460, 2022.","title":"Incomplete argumentation frameworks: Properties and complexity","authors":"Alfano","year":"2022","venue":"Proc. of the AAAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":2,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2022b] G. Alfano, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. On preferences and priority rules in abstract argumentation. In Proc. of the IJCAI Conf., pages 2517- 2524, 2022.","title":"On preferences and priority rules in abstract argumentation","authors":"Alfano","year":"2022","venue":"Proc. of the IJCAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":"/proceedings/2022/349"},{"position":3,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2023a] G. Alfano, M. Calautti, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. Explainable acceptance in probabilistic and incomplete abstract argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell., 323:103967, 2023.","title":"Explainable acceptance in probabilistic and incomplete abstract argumentation frameworks","authors":"Alfano","year":"2023","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":4,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2023b] G. Alfano, S. Greco, D. Mandaglio, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. Complexity of verification and existence problems in epistemic argumentation frame- work. In Proc. of ECAI Conf., pages 77-84, 2023.","title":"Complexity of verification and existence problems in epistemic argumentation framework","authors":"Alfano","year":"2023","venue":"Proc. of ECAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":5,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2023c] G. Alfano, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. Abstract argumentation framework with conditional preferences. In Proc. of the AAAI Conf., pages 6218-6227, 2023.","title":"Abstract argumentation framework with conditional preferences","authors":"Alfano","year":"2023","venue":"Proc. of the AAAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":6,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2023d] G. Alfano, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. Epistemic abstract argumentation frame- work: Formal foundations, computation and complexity. In Proc. of the AAMAS Conf., pages 409-417, 2023.","title":"Epistemic abstract argumentation framework: Formal foundations, computation and complexity","authors":"Alfano","year":"2023","venue":"Proc. of the AAMAS Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":7,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2023e] G. Alfano, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. On acceptance conditions in abstract argu- mentation frameworks. Inf. Sci., 625:757-779, 2023.","title":"On acceptance conditions in abstract argumentation frameworks","authors":"Alfano","year":"2023","venue":"Inf. Sci","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":8,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2023f] G. Alfano, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. Stable semantics for epistemic abstract ar- gumentation framework. In Proc. of Arg&App@KR, pages 11-25, 2023.","title":"Stable semantics for epistemic abstract argumentation framework","authors":"Alfano","year":"2023","venue":"Proc. of Arg&App@KR","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":9,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2024a] G. Alfano, A. Cohen, S. Gottifredi, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and G. R. Simari. Credulous accep- tance in high-order argumentation frameworks with ne- cessities: An incremental approach. Artif. Intell., page 104159, 2024.","title":"Credulous acceptance in high-order argumentation frameworks with necessities: An incremental approach","authors":"Alfano","year":"2024","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":10,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2024b] G. Alfano, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. Complexity of credulous and skeptical ac- ceptance in epistemic argumentation framework. In Proc. of AAAI Conf., pages 10423-10432, 2024.","title":"Complexity of credulous and skeptical acceptance in epistemic argumentation framework","authors":"Alfano","year":"2024","venue":"Proc. of AAAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":11,"raw":"[Alfano et al., 2024c] G. Alfano, S. Greco, F. Parisi, and I. Trubitsyna. On general epistemic abstract argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of the AAMAS Conf., pages 2117- 2119, 2024.","title":"On general epistemic abstract argumentation frameworks","authors":"Alfano","year":"2024","venue":"Proc. of the AAMAS Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":12,"raw":"[Amgoud and Cayrol, 2002] L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. In- ferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumenta- tion frameworks. J. Autom. Reason., 29(2):125-169, 2002.","title":"Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks","authors":"L Amgoud, C Cayrol","year":"2002","venue":"J. Autom. Reason","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":13,"raw":"[Amgoud and Vesic, 2014] L. Amgoud and S. Vesic. Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Ap- prox. Reason., 55(2):585-606, 2014.","title":"Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks","authors":"L Amgoud, S Vesic","year":"2014","venue":"Int. J. Approx. Reason","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":14,"raw":"[Arieli, 2015] O. Arieli. Conflict-free and conflict-tolerant semantics for constrained argumentation frameworks. J. Appl. Log., 13(4):582-604, 2015.","title":"Conflict-free and conflict-tolerant semantics for constrained argumentation frameworks","authors":"O Arieli","year":"2015","venue":"J. Appl. Log","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":15,"raw":"[Baroni and Giacomin, 2003] P. Baroni and M. Giacomin. Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in ar- gumentation. In Proc. of the ECSQARU Conf., pages 440- 451, 2003.","title":"Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation","authors":"P Baroni, M Giacomin","year":"2003","venue":"Proc. of the ECSQARU Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":16,"raw":"[Baumann and Ulbricht, 2021] R. Baumann and M. Ul- bricht. On cycles, attackers and supporters -A contribution to the investigation of dynamics in abstract argumentation. In Proc. of the IJCAI Conf., pages 1780-1786, 2021.","title":"On cycles, attackers and supporters -A contribution to the investigation of dynamics in abstract argumentation","authors":"R Baumann, M Ulbricht","year":"2021","venue":"Proc. of the IJCAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":"/proceedings/2021/245"},{"position":17,"raw":"[Baumeister et al., 2021] D. Baumeister, M. Järvisalo, D. Neugebauer, A. Niskanen, and J. Rothe. Acceptance in incomplete argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell., page 103470, 2021.","title":"Acceptance in incomplete argumentation frameworks","authors":"D Baumeister, M Järvisalo, D Neugebauer, A Niskanen, J Rothe","year":"2021","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":18,"raw":"[Bench-Capon and Dunne, 2007] T. J. Bench-Capon and P. E. Dunne. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell., 171:619 -641, 2007.","title":"Argumentation in artificial intelligence","authors":"T J Bench-Capon, P E Dunne","year":"2007","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":19,"raw":"[Bench-Capon, 2016] T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Dilemmas and paradoxes: cycles in argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput., 26(4):1055-1064, 2016.","title":"Dilemmas and paradoxes: cycles in argumentation frameworks","authors":"T J M Bench-Capon","year":"2016","venue":"J. Log. Comput","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":20,"raw":"[Bistarelli et al., 2021] S. Bistarelli, L. Kotthoff, F. Santini, and C. Taticchi. Summary report for the third international competition on computational models of argumentation. AI Mag., 42(3):70-73, 2021.","title":"Summary report for the third international competition on computational models of argumentation","authors":"S Bistarelli, L Kotthoff, F Santini, C Taticchi","year":"2021","venue":"AI Mag","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":21,"raw":"[Bodanza et al., 2016] G. A. Bodanza, F. A. Tohmé, and G. R. Simari. Beyond admissibility: accepting cycles in argumentation with game protocols for cogency criteria. J. Log. Comput., 26(4):1235-1255, 2016.","title":"Beyond admissibility: accepting cycles in argumentation with game protocols for cogency criteria","authors":"G A Bodanza, F A Tohmé, G R Simari","year":"2016","venue":"J. Log. Comput","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":22,"raw":"[Brewka et al., 2013] G. Brewka, H. Strass, S. Ellmauthaler, J. P. Wallner, and S. Woltran. Abstract dialectical frame- works revisited. In Proc. of the IJCAI Conf., pages 803- 809, 2013.","title":"Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited","authors":"G Brewka, H Strass, S Ellmauthaler, J P Wallner, S Woltran","year":"2013","venue":"Proc. of the IJCAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":"/proceedings/2013/125"},{"position":23,"raw":"[Cabalar et al., 2019] P. Cabalar, J. Fandinno, and L. F. del Cerro. Founded world views with autoepistemic equilib- rium logic. In Proc. of LPNMR, pages 134-147, 2019.","title":"Founded world views with autoepistemic equilibrium logic","authors":"P Cabalar, J Fandinno, L F Del Cerro","year":"2019","venue":"Proc. of LPNMR","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":24,"raw":"[Cabalar et al., 2020] P. Cabalar, J. Fandinno, and L. F. del Cerro. Autoepistemic answer set programming. Artif. In- tell., 289:103382, 2020.","title":"Autoepistemic answer set programming","authors":"P Cabalar, J Fandinno, L F Del Cerro","year":"2020","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":25,"raw":"[Caminada et al., 2015] M. Caminada, S. Sá, J. F. L. Alcântara, and W. Dvorák. On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation seman- tics. Int. J. Approx. Reason., 58:87-111, 2015.","title":"On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics","authors":"M Caminada, S Sá, J F L Alcântara, W Dvorák","year":"2015","venue":"Int. J. Approx. Reason","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":26,"raw":"[Caminada, 2006a] M. Caminada. On the issue of reinstate- ment in argumentation. In Proc. of the JELIA Conf., pages 111-123, 2006.","title":"On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation","authors":"] M Caminada ; A, Caminada","year":"2006","venue":"Proc. of the JELIA Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":27,"raw":"[Caminada, 2006b] M. Caminada. Semi-stable semantics. In Proc. of the COMMA Conf., pages 121-130, 2006.","title":"Semi-stable semantics","authors":"; M Caminada, Caminada","year":"2006","venue":"Proc. of the COMMA Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":28,"raw":"[Cayrol et al., 2018] C. Cayrol, J. Fandinno, L. F. del Cerro, and M. Lagasquie-Schiex. Structure-based semantics of argumentation frameworks with higher-order attacks and supports. In Proc. of COMMA Conf., pages 29-36, 2018.","title":"Structure-based semantics of argumentation frameworks with higher-order attacks and supports","authors":"C Cayrol, J Fandinno, L F Del Cerro, M Lagasquie-Schiex","year":"2018","venue":"Proc. of COMMA Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":29,"raw":"[Coste-Marquis et al., 2006] S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, and P. Marquis. Constrained argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of the KR Conf., pages 112-122, 2006.","title":"Constrained argumentation frameworks","authors":"S Coste-Marquis, C Devred, P Marquis","year":"2006","venue":"Proc. of the KR Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":30,"raw":"[del Cerro et al., 2015] L. F. del Cerro, A. Herzig, and E. I. Su. Epistemic equilibrium logic. In Proc. of the IJCAI Conf., pages 2964-2970, 2015.","title":"Epistemic equilibrium logic","authors":"L F Del Cerro, A Herzig, E I Su","year":"2015","venue":"Proc. of the IJCAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":"/proceedings/2015/419"},{"position":31,"raw":"[Dimopoulos et al., 2019] Y. Dimopoulos, J. Mailly, and P. Moraitis. Argumentation-based negotiation with incom- plete opponent profiles. In Proc. of the AAMAS Conf., pages 1252-1260, 2019.","title":"Argumentation-based negotiation with incomplete opponent profiles","authors":"Y Dimopoulos, J Mailly, P Moraitis","year":"2019","venue":"Proc. of the AAMAS Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":32,"raw":"[Dimopoulos et al., 2023] Y. Dimopoulos, W. Dvorák, M. König, A. Rapberger, M. Ulbricht, and S. Woltran. Sets attacking sets in abstract argumentation. In Proc. of the NMR Workshop, 2023.","title":"Sets attacking sets in abstract argumentation","authors":"Y Dimopoulos, W Dvorák, M König, A Rapberger, M Ulbricht, S Woltran","year":"2023","venue":"Proc. of the NMR Workshop","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":33,"raw":"[Dung and Thang, 2010] P. M. Dung and P. M. Thang. To- wards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. In Proc. COMMA Conf., pages 171-182, 2010.","title":"Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution","authors":"P M Dung, P M Thang","year":"2010","venue":"Proc. COMMA Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":34,"raw":"[Dung, 1995] P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell., 77:321- 358, 1995.","title":"On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games","authors":"P M Dung","year":"1995","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":35,"raw":"[Dvorak and Dunne, 2017] W. Dvorak and P. E. Dunne. Computational problems in formal argumentation and their complexity. FLAP, 4(8), 2017.","title":"Computational problems in formal argumentation and their complexity","authors":"W Dvorak, P E Dunne","year":"2017","venue":"FLAP","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":36,"raw":"[Dvorák et al., 2021] W. Dvorák, M. König, and S. Woltran. On the complexity of preferred semantics in argumenta- tion frameworks with bounded cycle length. In Proc. of the KR Conf., pages 671-675, 2021.","title":"On the complexity of preferred semantics in argumentation frameworks with bounded cycle length","authors":"W Dvorák, M König, S Woltran","year":"2021","venue":"Proc. of the KR Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":37,"raw":"[Dvořák et al., 2024] W. Dvořák, M. König, M. Ulbricht, and S. Woltran. Principles and their computational con- sequences for argumentation frameworks with collective attacks. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 2024.","title":"Principles and their computational consequences for argumentation frameworks with collective attacks","authors":"W Dvořák, M König, M Ulbricht, S Woltran","year":"2024","venue":"J. Artif. Intell. Res","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":38,"raw":"[Faber et al., 2019] W. Faber, M. Morak, and S. Woltran. Strong equivalence for epistemic logic programs made easy. In Proc. of the AAAI Conf., pages 2809-2816, 2019.","title":"Strong equivalence for epistemic logic programs made easy","authors":"W Faber, M Morak, S Woltran","year":"2019","venue":"Proc. of the AAAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":39,"raw":"[Fandinno et al., 2022] J. Fandinno, W. Faber, and M. Gel- fond. Thirty years of epistemic specifications. Theory Pract. Log. Program., 22(6):1043-1083, 2022.","title":"Thirty years of epistemic specifications","authors":"J Fandinno, W Faber, M Gelfond","year":"2022","venue":"Theory Pract. Log. Program","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":40,"raw":"[Fazzinga et al., 2021a] B. Fazzinga, S. Flesca, and F. Fur- faro. Reasoning over argument-incomplete aafs in the presence of correlations. In Proc. of IJCAI Conf., pages 189-195, 2021.","title":"Reasoning over argument-incomplete aafs in the presence of correlations","authors":"Fazzinga","year":"2021","venue":"Proc. of IJCAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":"/proceedings/2021/27"},{"position":41,"raw":"[Fazzinga et al., 2021b] B. Fazzinga, S. Flesca, and F. Fur- faro. Reasoning over attack-incomplete aafs in the pres- ence of correlations. In Proc. of the KR Conf., pages 301- 311, 2021.","title":"Reasoning over attack-incomplete aafs in the presence of correlations","authors":"Fazzinga","year":"2021","venue":"Proc. of the KR Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":42,"raw":"[Fazzinga et al., 2022a] B. Fazzinga, S. Flesca, and F. Fur- faro. Abstract argumentation frameworks with marginal probabilities. In Proc. of the IJCAI Conf., pages 2613- 2619, 2022.","title":"Abstract argumentation frameworks with marginal probabilities","authors":"Fazzinga","year":"2022","venue":"Proc. of the IJCAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":"/proceedings/2022/362"},{"position":43,"raw":"[Fazzinga et al., 2022b] B. Fazzinga, S. Flesca, F. Furfaro, and L. Pontieri. Process mining meets argumentation: Ex- plainable interpretations of low-level event logs via ab- stract argumentation. Inf. Syst., 107:101987, 2022.","title":"Process mining meets argumentation: Explainable interpretations of low-level event logs via abstract argumentation","authors":"Fazzinga","year":"2022","venue":"Inf. Syst","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":44,"raw":"[Fazzinga et al., 2023] B. Fazzinga, S. Flesca, and F. Fur- faro. Taking into account \"who said what\" in abstract ar- gumentation: Complexity results. AIJ, 318:103885, 2023.","title":"Taking into account \"who said what\" in abstract argumentation: Complexity results","authors":"B Fazzinga, S Flesca, F Furfaro","year":"2023","venue":"AIJ","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":45,"raw":"[Gelfond, 1991] M. Gelfond. Strong introspection. In Proc. of the AAAI Conf., pages 386-391, 1991.","title":"Strong introspection","authors":"M Gelfond","year":"1991","venue":"Proc. of the AAAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":46,"raw":"[Gelfond, 1994] M. Gelfond. Logic programming and rea- soning with incomplete information. Ann. Math. Artif. In- tell., 12(1-2):89-116, 1994.","title":"Logic programming and reasoning with incomplete information","authors":"M Gelfond","year":"1994","venue":"Ann. Math. Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":47,"raw":"[Gelfond, 2011] M. Gelfond. New semantics for epistemic specifications. In Proc. of the LPNMR Conf., volume 6645, pages 260-265, 2011.","title":"New semantics for epistemic specifications","authors":"M Gelfond","year":"2011","venue":"Proc. of the LPNMR Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":48,"raw":"[Hunter et al., 2020] A. Hunter, S. Polberg, and M. Thimm. Epistemic graphs for representing and reasoning with pos- itive and negative influences of arguments. Artif. Intell., 281:103236, 2020.","title":"Epistemic graphs for representing and reasoning with positive and negative influences of arguments","authors":"A Hunter, S Polberg, M Thimm","year":"2020","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":49,"raw":"[Hunter, 2013] A. Hunter. A probabilistic approach to mod- elling uncertain logical arguments. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1):47-81, 2013.","title":"A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments","authors":"A Hunter","year":"2013","venue":"International Journal of Approximate Reasoning","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":50,"raw":"[Järvisalo et al., 2023] M. Järvisalo, T. Lehtonen, and A. Niskanen. Design of ICCMA 2023, 5th interna- tional competition on computational models of argumen- tation: A preliminary report (invited paper). In Proc. of Arg&App@KR, pages 4-10, 2023.","title":"Design of ICCMA 2023, 5th international competition on computational models of argumentation: A preliminary report","authors":"M Järvisalo, T Lehtonen, A Niskanen","year":"2023","venue":"Proc. of Arg&App@KR","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":51,"raw":"[Kaci et al., 2018] S. Kaci, L. W. N. van der Torre, and S. Villata. Preference in abstract argumentation. In Proc. of the COMMA Conf., pages 405-412, 2018.","title":"Preference in abstract argumentation","authors":"S Kaci, L W N Van Der Torre, S Villata","year":"2018","venue":"Proc. of the COMMA Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":52,"raw":"[Kahl et al., 2020] P. Kahl, R. Watson, E. Balai, M. Gelfond, and Y. Zhang. The language of epistemic specifications (refined) including a prototype solver. J. Log. Comput., 30(4):953-989, 2020.","title":"The language of epistemic specifications (refined) including a prototype solver","authors":"P Kahl, R Watson, E Balai, M Gelfond, Y Zhang","year":"2020","venue":"J. Log. Comput","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":53,"raw":"M. Lagasquie-Schiex. Handling support cycles and collective interactions in the logical en- coding of higher-order bipolar argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput., 33(2):289-318, 2023.","title":"Handling support cycles and collective interactions in the logical encoding of higher-order bipolar argumentation frameworks","authors":"M Lagasquie-Schiex","year":"2023","venue":"J. Log. Comput","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":54,"raw":"[Li et al., 2011] H. Li, N. Oren, and T. J. Norman. Prob- abilistic argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of TAFA, pages 1-16, 2011.","title":"Probabilistic argumentation frameworks","authors":"H Li, N Oren, T J Norman","year":"2011","venue":"Proc. of TAFA","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":55,"raw":"[Modgil and Prakken, 2013] S. Modgil and H. Prakken. A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell., 195:361-397, 2013.","title":"A general account of argumentation with preferences","authors":"S Modgil, H Prakken","year":"2013","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":56,"raw":"[Nielsen and Parsons, 2006] S. H. Nielsen and S. Parsons. A generalization of Dung's abstract framework for argu- mentation: Arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In ArgMAS, 2006.","title":"A generalization of Dung's abstract framework for argumentation: Arguing with sets of attacking arguments","authors":"S H Nielsen, S Parsons","year":"2006","venue":"ArgMAS","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":57,"raw":"[Prakken, 2009] H. Prakken. Models of persuasion dialogue. In Argumentation in AI, pages 281-300. 2009.","title":"Models of persuasion dialogue","authors":"H Prakken","year":"2009","venue":"Argumentation in AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":58,"raw":"[Sakama and Son, 2020] C. Sakama and T. C. Son. Epis- temic argumentation framework: Theory and computa- tion. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 69:1103-1126, 2020.","title":"Epistemic argumentation framework: Theory and computation","authors":"C Sakama, T C Son","year":"2020","venue":"J. Artif. Intell. Res","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":59,"raw":"[Shen and Eiter, 2016] Y. Shen and T. Eiter. Evaluating epis- temic negation in answer set programming. Artif. Intell., 237:115-135, 2016.","title":"Evaluating epistemic negation in answer set programming","authors":"Y Shen, T Eiter","year":"2016","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":60,"raw":"[Simari and Rahwan, 2009] G. R. Simari and I. Rahwan, ed- itors. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2009.","title":"Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence","authors":null,"year":"2009","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":61,"raw":"[Thimm, 2012] M. Thimm. A probabilistic semantics for ab- stract argumentation. In Proc. of the ECAI Conf., pages 750-755, 2012.","title":"A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation","authors":"M Thimm","year":"2012","venue":"Proc. of the ECAI Conf","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":62,"raw":"[van Ditmarsch et al., 2015] H. van Ditmarsch, J. Y. Halpern, W. v.d. Hoek, and B. P. Kooi, editors. Handbook of Epistemic Logic. College Publications, 2015.","title":"Handbook of Epistemic Logic","authors":null,"year":"2015","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":63,"raw":"[Villata et al., 2012] S. Villata, G. Boella, D. M. Gabbay, and L. W. N. van der Torre. Modelling defeasible and priori- tized support in bipolar argumentation. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 66(1-4), 2012.","title":"Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation","authors":"S Villata, G Boella, D M Gabbay, L W N Van Der Torre","year":"2012","venue":"Ann. Math. Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null}],"license_note":"Copyright International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence."}