#### Filter Results:

- Full text PDF available (32)

#### Publication Year

1992

2015

- This year (0)
- Last 5 years (8)
- Last 10 years (13)

#### Publication Type

#### Co-author

#### Journals and Conferences

#### Key Phrases

Learn More

- Sylvie Coste-Marquis, Caroline Devred, Pierre Marquis
- ECSQARU
- 2005

This paper is centered on the family of Dung’s finite argumentation frameworks when the attacks relation is symmetric (and nonempty and irreflexive). We show that while this family does not contain any well-founded framework, every element of it is both coherent and relatively grounded. Then we focus on the acceptability problems for the various semantics… (More)

- Sylvie Coste-Marquis, Caroline Devred, Sébastien Konieczny, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex, Pierre Marquis
- Artif. Intell.
- 2007

In this paper, the problem of deriving sensible information from a collection of argumentation systems coming from different agents is addressed. The underlying argumentation theory is Dung’s one: each argumentation system gives both a set of arguments and the way they interact (i.e., attack or non-attack) according to the corresponding agent. The… (More)

Several logical languages have been considered in AI for encoding compactly preference relations over a set of alternatives. In this paper, we analyze both the expressiveness and the spatial efficiency (succinctness) of such preference representation languages. The first issue is concerned with the nature of the preorders that can be encoded (for instance,… (More)

In this paper, we investigate the revision of argumentation systems à la Dung. We focus on revision as minimal change of the arguments status. Contrarily to most of the previous works on the topic, the addition of new arguments is not allowed in the revision process, so that the revised system has to be obtained by modifying the attack relation only. We… (More)

- Sylvie Coste-Marquis, Caroline Devred, Pierre Marquis
- 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with…
- 2005

We present new prudent semantics within Dung's theory of argumentation. Under such prudent semantics, two arguments cannot belong to the same extension whenever one of them attacks indirectly the other one. We argue that our semantics lead to a better handling of controversial arguments than Dung's ones. We compare the prudent inference relations induced by… (More)

Change in abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is a very active topic. Especially, the problem of enforcing a set E of arguments, i.e., ensuring that E is an extension (or a subset of an extension) of a given AF F , has received a particular attention in the recent years. In this paper, we define a new family of enforcement operators, for which… (More)

Recently, (Dunne et al. 2009; 2011) have suggested to weight attacks within Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks, and introduced the concept of WAF (Weighted Argumentation Framework). However, they use WAFs in a very specific way for relaxing attacks. The aim of this paper is to explore ways to take advantage of attacks weights within an argumentation… (More)

In this paper, the complexity of several paraconsistent inference relations, based on multivalued logics, is investigated. Many inference relations pointed out so far by Arieli and Avron, Besnard and Schaub, D’Ottaviano and da Costa, Frisch, Levesque, Priest are considered from the computational side. All these relations can be gathered into two categories:… (More)

We present a generalization of Dung’s theory of argumentation enabling to take account for some additional constraints on the admissible sets of arguments, expressed as a propositional formula over the set of arguments. We point out several semantics for such constrained argumentation frameworks, and compare the corresponding inference relations w.r.t.… (More)

- Sylvie Coste-Marquis, Pierre Marquis
- ECAI
- 2000

Many coherence-based approaches to inconsistency handling within propositional belief bases have been proposed so far. They consist in selecting one or several preferred consistent subbases of the given (usually inconsistent) stratified belief base (SBB), then using classical inference from some of the selected subbases. Unfortunately, deciding the… (More)