Titlebook: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems; 7th International Wo Peter McBurney,Iyad Rahwan,Simon Parsons Conference proceedings 2011 Springer-Ve

NAUT

Bombast

synovium

Liver Disease Due to Infection and Allergy, private, possibly large, databases. Each agent in the community has independent sources of information and each database could contain information that is potentially inconsistent and incomplete, both by itself and/or in conjunction with some of the others. These characteristics make the consolidat

Agnosia

Experimental Protocols in Biotechnologyargumentation frameworks can be studied as Kripke frames. This simple observation allows us to import a number of techniques and results from modal logic to argumentation theory, and opens up new interesting avenues for further research. The paper gives a glimpse of the sort of techniques that can b

并入

Varsha Gupta,Baishnab Charan Tripathy classical Dung abstract argumentation framework. The system is built around Fuzzy Description Logic and exploits the integration of ontologies with argumentation theory, attaining the advantage of facilitating communication of domain knowledge between agents. The formal properties of fuzzy relation

染色體

盡責(zé)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17053-9ion in which all lines of argumentation are executed in succession, with the change of the agent’s knowledge base. This system was designed for grasping the behaviour of actual argumentation, but it has several limitations. In this paper, we propose an extended system in which these points are revis

landmark

水槽

Statistical tests for unrelated designs,at differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i.e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agents. We give a thorough investigation and classification of these scenarios em

overwrought

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-7241-7ation framework (.) to deal with additional preferences over a set of arguments. In our formalism, the semantics of such a . is given as .-extensions that are selected from extensions of acceptability semantics by taking into account such preferences. Second, using a prioritized logic program (PLP)