Control Argumentation Frameworks

Authors: Yannis Dimopoulos, Jean-Guy Mailly, Pavlos Moraitis

AAAI 2018 | Conference PDF | Archive PDF | Plain Text | LLM Run Details

Reproducibility Variable Result LLM Response
Research Type Theoretical This work proposes Control Argumentation Frameworks (CAFs), a new approach that generalizes existing techniques, namely normal extension enforcement, by accommodating the possibility of uncertainty in dynamic scenarios. A QBF encoding of reasoning with CAFs provides a computational mechanism for determining whether and how this goal can be reached. We also provide some results concerning soundness and completeness of the proposed encoding as well as complexity issues.
Researcher Affiliation Academia Yannis Dimopoulos Department of Computer Science University of Cyprus yannis@cs.ucy.ac.cy Jean-Guy Mailly LIPADE Paris Descartes University, France jean-guy.mailly@parisdescartes.fr Pavlos Moraitis LIPADE Paris Descartes University, France pavlos@mi.parisdescartes.fr
Pseudocode Yes Algorithm 1 CAFControl Require: CAF = F, C, U , T AF , x {sk, cr} QBFsk(CAF, T) is the formula defined by (1) QBFcr(CAF, T) is the formula defined by (2) if QBFTruth(QBFx(CAF, T)) then Aconf = {xi AC | onxi is assigned 1 in QBFModel(QBFx(CAF, T))} return Aconf else return end if
Open Source Code No The paper does not contain any statement about releasing open-source code for the methodology, nor does it provide a link to a code repository.
Open Datasets No The paper is theoretical and focuses on developing a new argumentation framework and its logical encoding. It does not mention or use any specific datasets for training, validation, or testing.
Dataset Splits No The paper is theoretical and does not describe experiments involving dataset splits for training, validation, or testing. Therefore, no specific dataset split information is provided.
Hardware Specification No The paper is theoretical and does not describe empirical experiments that would require specific hardware. Therefore, no hardware specifications are mentioned.
Software Dependencies No The paper mentions using "QBFs" and refers to "QBF solvers" (Pulina 2016), but it does not specify any particular QBF solver by name with a version number, or other software dependencies with versions required for reproducibility.
Experiment Setup No The paper is theoretical and focuses on formal definitions, logical encodings, and complexity analysis. It does not describe any empirical experimental setup, hyperparameters, or training configurations.