References of "Rienstra, Tjitze 50002936"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
See detailArgumentation in Flux: Modelling Change in the Theory of Argumentation
Rienstra, Tjitze UL

Doctoral thesis (2014)

Detailed reference viewed: 168 (15 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailProperty-based preferences in abstract argumentation
Booth, Richard UL; Kaci, Souhila; Rienstra, Tjitze UL

in Algorithmic Decision Theory - Third International Conference, ADT 2013 (2013)

Detailed reference viewed: 113 (3 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailA logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation
Booth, Richard UL; Kaci, Souhila; Rienstra, Tjitze UL et al

Scientific Conference (2013)

Detailed reference viewed: 154 (13 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailA logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation
Booth, Richard UL; Kaci, Souhila; Rienstra, Tjitze UL et al

Scientific Conference (2013)

Detailed reference viewed: 127 (7 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailMonotonic and non-monotonic inference for abstract argumentation
Booth, Richard UL; Kaci, Souhila; Rienstra, Tjitze UL et al

in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2013 (2013)

We present a new approach to reasoning about the outcome of an argumentation framework, where an agent’s reasoning with a framework and semantics is represented by an inference relation defined over a ... [more ▼]

We present a new approach to reasoning about the outcome of an argumentation framework, where an agent’s reasoning with a framework and semantics is represented by an inference relation defined over a logical labeling language. We first study a monotonic type of inference which is, in a sense, more general than an acceptance function, but equally expressive. In order to overcome the limitations of this expressiveness, we study a non-monotonic type of inference which allows counterfactual inferences. We precisely characterize the classes of frameworks distinguishable by the non-monotonic inference relation for the admissible semantics. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 84 (4 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation
Booth, Richard UL; Kaci, Souhila; Rienstra, Tjitze UL et al

in Scalable Uncertainty Management - 7th International Conference, SUM 2013 (2013)

We address dynamics in abstract argumentation using a logical theory where an agent’s belief state consists of an argumentation framework (AF, for short) and a constraint that encodes the outcome the ... [more ▼]

We address dynamics in abstract argumentation using a logical theory where an agent’s belief state consists of an argumentation framework (AF, for short) and a constraint that encodes the outcome the agent believes the AF should have. Dynamics enters in two ways: (1) the constraint is strengthened upon learning that the AF should have a certain outcome and (2) the AF is expanded upon learning about new arguments/attacks. A problem faced in this setting is that a constraint may be inconsistent with the AF’s outcome. We discuss two ways to address this problem: First, it is still possible to form consistent fallback beliefs, i.e., beliefs that are most plausible given the agent’s AF and constraint. Second, we show that it is always possible to find AF expansions to restore consistency. Our work combines various individual approaches in the literature on argumentation dynamics in a general setting. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 154 (6 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailConditional acceptance functions
Booth, Richard UL; Kaci, Souhila; Rienstra, Tjitze UL et al

in 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012) (2012)

Dung-style abstract argumentation theory centers on argumentation frameworks and acceptance functions. The latter take as input a framework and return sets of labelings. This methodology assumes full ... [more ▼]

Dung-style abstract argumentation theory centers on argumentation frameworks and acceptance functions. The latter take as input a framework and return sets of labelings. This methodology assumes full awareness of the arguments relevant to the evaluation. There are two reasons why this is not satisfactory. Firstly, full awareness is, in general, not a realistic assumption. Second, frameworks have explanatory power, which allows us to reason abductively or counterfactually, but this is lost under the usual semantics. To recover this aspect, we generalize conventional acceptance, and we present the concept of a conditional acceptance function. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 72 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailMulti-sorted Argumentation
Rienstra, Tjitze UL; Perotti, Alan; Villata, Serena et al

in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA 2011) (2011, July 16), 7132

In the theory of abstract argumentation, the acceptance status of arguments is normally determined for the complete set of arguments at once, under a single semantics. However, this is not always desired ... [more ▼]

In the theory of abstract argumentation, the acceptance status of arguments is normally determined for the complete set of arguments at once, under a single semantics. However, this is not always desired. In this paper, we extend the notion of an argumentation framework to a multi-sorted argumentation framework, and we motivate this extension using an example which considers practical and epistemic arguments. In a multi-sorted argumentation framework, the arguments are partitioned into a number of cells, where each cell is associated with a semantics under which its arguments are evaluated. We prove the properties of the proposed framework, and we demonstrate our theory with a number of examples. Finally, we relate our theory to the theory of modal fibring of argumentation networks. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 113 (0 UL)