#### Filter Results:

- Full text PDF available (39)

#### Publication Year

2009

2017

- This year (6)
- Last 5 years (30)
- Last 10 years (42)

#### Publication Type

#### Co-author

#### Journals and Conferences

#### Key Phrases

Learn More

- Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic
- IJCAI
- 2009

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on the construction and evaluation of arguments. Dung has proposed an abstract argumentation framework in which arguments are assumed to have the same strength. This assumption is unfortunately not realistic. Consequently, three main extensions of the framework have been proposed in the literature. The basic idea is… (More)

- Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic
- Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
- 2011

Dung’s argumentation framework consists of a set of arguments and an attack relation among them. Arguments are evaluated and acceptable sets of them, called extensions, are computed using a given semantics. Each extension represents a coherent position. In the literature, several proposals have extended this framework in order to take into account the… (More)

- Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic
- J. Log. Comput.
- 2012

This paper proposes an abstract framework for argumentation-based negotiation in which the impact of exchanging arguments on agents’ theories is formally described, the different types of solutions in negotiation are investigated, and the added value of argumentation in negotiation dialogues is analyzed. We study when, how and to which extent an exchange of… (More)

- Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic
- Int. J. Approx. Reasoning
- 2014

An argumentation framework is seen as a directed graph whose nodes are arguments and arcs are attacks between the arguments. Acceptable sets of arguments, called extensions, are computed using a semantics. Existing semantics are solely based on the attacks and do not take into account other important criteria like the intrinsic strengths of arguments. The… (More)

- Martin Caminada, Wolfgang Dvorák, Srdjan Vesic
- J. Log. Comput.
- 2016

In abstract argumentation theory, preferred semantics has become one of the most popular approaches for determining the sets of arguments that can collectively be accepted. However, the description of preferred semantics, as it was originally stated by Dung, has a mainly technical and mathematical nature, making it difficult for lay persons to understand… (More)

- Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic
- ECSQARU
- 2011

In this paper, we show that preferences intervene twice in argumentation frameworks: i) to compute standard solutions (i.e. extensions), and ii) to refine those solutions (i.e. to return only the preferred extensions). The two roles are independent and obey to distinct postulates. After introducing and studying the postulates, we provide an example of a… (More)

- Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic
- J. Log. Comput.
- 2012

Decision making is usually based on the comparative evaluation of different op-<lb>tions by means of a decision criterion. Recently, the qualitative pessimistic criterion<lb>was articulated in terms of a four-step argumentation process: i) to build arguments<lb>in favor/against each option, ii) to compare and evaluate those arguments, iii) to<lb>assign a… (More)

- Srdjan Vesic
- J. Artif. Intell. Res.
- 2013

Dung’s abstract argumentation theory can be seen as a general framework for non-monotonic reasoning. An important question is then: what is the class of logics that can be subsumed as instantiations of this theory? The goal of this paper is to identify and study the large class of logic-based instantiations of Dung’s theory which correspond to the… (More)

- Madalina Croitoru, Srdjan Vesic
- SUM
- 2013

The area of inconsistent ontological knowledge base query answering studies the problem of inferring from an inconsistent ontology. To deal with such a situation, different semantics have been defined in the literature (e.g. AR, IAR, ICR). Argumentation theory can also be used to draw conclusions under inconsistency. Given a set of arguments and attacks… (More)

- Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic
- SUM
- 2010

Argumentation is a promising approach for handling inconsistent knowledge bases, based on the justification of plausible conclusions by arguments. Due to inconsistency, arguments may be attacked by counterarguments. The problem is thus to evaluate the arguments in order to select the most acceptable ones. The aim of this paper is to make a bridge between… (More)