Reasoning in abstract dialectical frameworks using quantified Boolean formulas

References

• Arieli O., & Caminada M.W.A. (2013). A QBF-based formalization of abstract argumentation semantics. Journal of Applied Logic, 11, 229–252. doi: 10.1016/j.jal.2013.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroni P., Cerutti F., Giacomin M., & Guida G. (2011). AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 52, 19–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2010.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon T.J.M. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 429–448. doi: 10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benedetti M., & Mangassarian H. (2008). QBF-based formal verification: Experience and perspectives. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 5, 133–191.
   Google Scholar
• Brewka G., Ellmauthaler S., Strass H., Wallner J.P., & Woltran S. (2013). Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited. In F. Rossi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 2013 (pp. 803–809). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press / IJCAI.
   Google Scholar
• Brewka G., Polberg S., & Woltran S. (2014). Generalizations of dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 29, 30–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewka G., & Woltran S. (2010). Abstract dialectical frameworks. In F. Lin, U. Sattler, & M. Truszczyński (Eds.), Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, KR 2010 (pp. 102–111). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant R.E., Lahiri S.K., & Seshia S.A. (2003). Convergence testing in term-level bounded model checking. In D. Geist & E. Tronci (Eds.), Proceedings of the twelfth advanced research working conference on correct hardware design and verification methods, CHARME-2003, Vol. 2860 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 348–362). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Büning H.K., & Bubeck U. (2009). Theory of quantified Boolean formulas. In A. Biere, M. Heule, H. van Maaren, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of satisfiability, Vol. 185 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 735–760). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caminada M.W.A., & Gabbay D.M. (2009). A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica, 93, 109–145. doi: 10.1007/s11225-009-9218-x
   Google Scholar
• Cayrol C., & Lagasquie-Schiex M. (2005). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In L. Godo (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth European conference on symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty, ECSQARU 2005, Vol. 3571 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 378–389). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cerutti F., Dunne P.E., Giacomin M., & Vallati M. (2013). Computing preferred extensions in abstract argumentation: A SAT-based approach. In E. Black, S. Modgil, & N. Oren (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international workshop of theory and applications of formal argumentation, TAFA-2013, Vol. 8306 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 176–193). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cerutti F., Giacomin M., Vallati M., & Zanella M. (2014). An SCC recursive meta-algorithm for computing preferred labellings in abstract argumentation. In C. Baral, G.D. Giacomo, & T. Eiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, KR 2014. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Charwat G., Dvořák W., Gaggl S.A., Wallner J.P., & Woltran S. (2015). Methods for solving reasoning problems in abstract argumentation – a survey. Artificial Intelligence, 220, 28–63. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2014.11.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diller M. (2014). Solving reasoning problems on abstract dialectical frameworks via quantified Boolean formulas (Master's thesis, Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Information Systems).
   Google Scholar
• Diller M., Wallner J.P., & Woltran S. (2014). Reasoning in abstract dialectical frameworks using quantified Boolean formulas. In S. Parsons, N. Oren, C. Reed, & F. Cerutti (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-2014, Vol. 266 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 241–252). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dung P.M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and N-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne P.E., & Bench-Capon T.J.M. (2002). Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence, 141, 187–203. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00261-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dvořák W., Järvisalo M., Wallner J.P., & Woltran S. (2014). Complexity-sensitive decision procedures for abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 206, 53–78. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2013.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egly U., Eiter T., Tompits H., & Woltran S. (2000). Solving advanced reasoning tasks using quantified Boolean formulas. In H.A. Kautz & B.W. Porter (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventeenth national conference on artificial intelligence and twelfth conference on on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (AAAI/IAAI-2000) (pp. 417–422). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press / The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Egly U., & Woltran S. (2006). Reasoning in argumentation frameworks using quantified boolean formulas. In P.E. Dunne & T.J.M. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Proceedings of the first conference on computational models of argument, COMMA 2006, Vol. 144 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, Liverpool, (pp. 133–144).
   Google Scholar
• Ellmauthaler S., & Strass H. (2013). The DIAMOND system for argumentation: Preliminary report. In M. Fink & Y. Lierler (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on answer set programming and other computing paradigms, ASPOCP 2013, Istanbul (pp. 97–108).
   Google Scholar
• Ellmauthaler S., & Strass H. (2014). The DIAMOND system for computing with abstract dialectical frameworks. In S. Parsons, N. Oren, C. Reed, & F. Cerutti (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-2014, Vol. 266 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 233–240). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferraris P., & Giunchiglia E. (2000). Planning as satisfiability in nondeterministic domains. In H.A. Kautz & B.W. Porter (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventeenth national conference on artificial intelligence and twelfth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence, AAAI/IAAI-2000 (pp. 748–753). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press / The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franco J., & Martin J. (2009). A history of satisfiability. In A. Biere, M. Heule, H. van Maaren, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of satisfiability, Vol. 185 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 3–74). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giunchiglia E., Marin P., & Narizzano M. (2009). Reasoning with quantified Boolean formulas. In A. Biere, M. Heule, H. van Maaren, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of satisfiability, Vol. 185 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 761–780). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giunchiglia E., Narizzano M., & Tacchella A. (2007). Quantifier structure in search-based procedures for QBFs. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 26, 497–507. doi: 10.1109/TCAD.2006.888264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ling A.C., Singh D.P., & Brown S.D. (2005). FPGA logic synthesis using quantified boolean satisfiability. In F. Bacchus & T. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing, SAT 2005, Vol. 3569 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 444–450). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lonsing F., & Egly U. (2014). Incremental QBF solving. In B. O'Sullivan (Ed.), Principles and practice of constraint programming – Proceedings of the 20th international conference, CP 2014, Vol. 8656 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 514–530). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lonsing F., & Seidl M. (Eds.) (2013). Informal workshop report on the international workshop on quantified Boolean formulas 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Mneimneh M.N., & Sakallah K.A. (2003). Computing vertex eccentricity in exponentially large graphs: QBF formulation and solution. In E. Giunchiglia & A. Tacchella (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on theory and applications of satisfiability testing (SAT-2003), Vol. 2919 of Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 411–425). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rintanen J. (1999). Constructing conditional plans by a theorem-prover. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10, 323–352.
   Google Scholar
• Strass H. (2013). Approximating operators and semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 205, 39–70. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2013.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strass H., & Wallner J.P. (2014). Analyzing the computational complexity of abstract dialectical frameworks via approximation fixpoint theory. In C. Baral, G.D. Giacomo, & T. Eiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, KR 2014 (pp. 101–110). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wallner J. P. (2014). Complexity results and algorithms for argumentation – Dung's frameworks and beyond (PhD thesis, Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Information Systems).
   Google Scholar