Reasoning about actions and change in argumentation

References

• Baumann R., & Brewka G. (2010). Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, Desenzano del Garda, Italy, September 8–10, 2010, pp. 75–86.
   Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon T. J. M., & Dunne P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 619–641. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bondarenko A., Dung P. M., Kowalski R. A., & Toni F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63–101. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesñevar C. I., Maguitman A. G., & Simari G. R. (2004). A first approach to argument-based recommender systems based on defeasible logic programming. Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (NMR 2004), Whistler, Canada, June 6–8, 2004, pp. 109–117.
   Google Scholar
• Diakidoy I. A., Kakas A. C., Michael L., & Miller R. (2014). Story comprehension through argumentation. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 2014), September, Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (Vol. 266, pp. 31–42). Scottish Highlands: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos Y., & Kakas A. C. (1995). Logic programming without negation as failure. Logic programming, proceedings of the 1995 international symposium, Portland, OR, USA, December 4–7, 1995, pp. 369–383.
   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
• P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, & Toni F. (2006). Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 170, 114–159. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2005.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelfond M., & Lifschitz V. (1993). Representing action and change by logic programs. The Journal of Logic Programming, 17, 301–321. doi: 10.1016/0743-1066(93)90035-F
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kakas A. C., Kowalski R. A., & Toni F. (1992). Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computing, 2, 719–770. doi: 10.1093/logcom/2.6.719
   Google Scholar
• Kakas A. C., Mancarella P., & Dung P. M. (1994). The acceptability semantics for logic programs. Logic programming, proceedings of the eleventh international conference on logic programming, Santa Marherita Ligure, Italy, June 13–18, 1994, pp. 504–519.
   Google Scholar
• Kakas A. C., Maudet N., & Moraitis P. (2004). Flexible agent dialogue strategies and societal communication protocols. Paper presented at the 3rd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2004), New York, NY, USA, August 19–23, 2004, pp. 1434–1435.
   Google Scholar
• A. Kakas, & Miller R. (1997). A simple declarative language for describing narratives with actions. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 31, 157–200. doi: 10.1016/S0743-1066(96)00138-0
   Google Scholar
• Kakas A. C., Miller R., & Toni F. (1999). An argumentation framework of reasoning about actions and change. LPNMR, El Paso, Texas, USA, pp. 78–91.
   Google Scholar
• Kautz H. A. (1986). The logic of persistence. Proceedings of the 5th national conference on artificial intelligence: Volume 1: Science, Philadelphia, PA, August 11–15, 1986, pp. 401–405.
   Google Scholar
• R. Kowalski, & M. Sergot (1986). A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing, 4, 67–95. doi: 10.1007/BF03037383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao B., Jin L., & Koons R. C. (2011). Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 1790–1814. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2011.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McBurney P., & Parsons S. (2009). Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In G. Simari & I. Rahwan (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 261–280). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McCain N., & Turner H. (1997). Causal theories of action and change. Proceedings of the AAAI-97, Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 460–465.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy J., & Hayes P. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4, 463–502.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier H., & Sperber D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–74. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller R., & Shanahan M. (1999). The event calculus in classical logic – alternative axiomatisations. Electronic Transaction of Artificial Intelligence, 3, 77–105.
   Google Scholar
• Modgil S., & Caminada M. (2009). Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In G. Simari & I. Rahwan (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 105–129). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Modgil S., & Prakken H. (2013). A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 195, 361–397. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahwan I., & Simari G. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan M. (1997). Solving the frame problem – a mathematical investigation of the common sense law of inertia. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thielscher M. (1999). From situation calculus to fluent calculus: State update axioms as a solution to the inferential frame problem. Artificial Intelligence, 111, 277–299. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00033-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielscher M. (2001). The qualification problem: A solution to the problem of anomalous models. AIJ, 131, 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Vo Q. B., & Foo N. Y. (2005). Reasoning about action: An argumentation-theoretic approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, 465–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar