Bibliography
The complete reference list for the formalisms this library implements. Anchored by paper ID; concept and example pages link here.
Foundational
dung1995
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(2), 321–357. [PDF]
The paper that founded the field. Defines abstract argumentation frameworks, conflict-free / admissible / preferred / stable / grounded semantics. Uses the Nixon diamond.
reiter1980
Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1–2), 81–132.
The default logic paper that motivated much of the field. Home of the Tweety-flies-because-bird problem.
Walton's canon
walton2008
Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press. [Publisher]
A comprehensive catalogue of ~60 presumptive argument schemes. Each scheme comes with premises, conclusion, and critical questions. Our argumentation-schemes crate ships a subset.
walton2006
Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
A teaching-focused book — short worked dialogues (parent-child, doctor-patient, courtroom). Good entry point if the 2008 book feels dense.
Bipolar
cayrol2005
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. (2005). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. ECSQARU 2005. [Springer]
Introduces support edges alongside attacks. Argues supports aren't reducible to attacks. The foundation for our argumentation-bipolar crate.
amgoud2008
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Livet, P. (2008). On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 23(10), 1062–1093. [PDF]
The survey paper on bipolar. Covers multiple support semantics — worth reading if you want to understand which support semantics our implementation picks.
Weighted
dunne2011
Dunne, P. E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M. (2011). Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artificial Intelligence, 175(2), 457–486. [PDF]
Introduces weighted argument systems and β-budget inconsistency tolerance. The semantic foundation of our argumentation-weighted crate. The β-as-scene-intensity mapping is a direct application of this paper's machinery.
amgoud2016
Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J. (2016). Axiomatic foundations of acceptability semantics. KR 2016.
Graded semantics in weighted frameworks — ordering arguments by acceptance strength. Relevant if you want per-argument acceptance scores rather than binary accept/reject.
ASPIC+
prakken2010
Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1(2), 93–124.
The original ASPIC+ paper. Builds structured arguments from strict/defeasible rules and reduces to Dung frameworks.
modgil2014
Modgil, S., Prakken, H. (2014). The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument and Computation, 5(1), 31–62. [Publisher]
An approachable entry point. Uses the Tweety penguin example. A good tutorial for newcomers to ASPIC+.
Values & practical reasoning
benchcapon2003
Bench-Capon, T. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429–448. [arXiv]
Introduces value-based argumentation. Home of the Hal & Carla example.
atkinson2007
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. (2007). Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15), 855–874. [ScienceDirect]
Practical reasoning (deliberation between actions) modeled as argumentation over action-transitions. Relevant to scene AI where characters deliberate.
Legal / forensic
bex2003
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 125–165.
Argumentation applied to legal evidence. Source of the snoring-witness / undercutting examples.
Semantics surveys
baroni2011
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M. (2011). An introduction to argumentation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(4), 365–410.
A widely-cited survey of Dung + post-Dung semantics. Covers complete, preferred, stable, grounded, plus ideal, eager, CF2, stage, and others.