On the Relative Expressiveness of Argumentation Frameworks, Normal Logic Programs and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

We analyse the expressiveness of the two-valued semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and abstract dialectical frameworks. By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of two-valued interpretations over a given propositional signature using only atoms from that signature. While the computational complexity of the two-valued model existence problem for all these languages is (almost) the same, we show that the languages form a neat hierarchy with respect to their expressiveness.Comment: Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014

Properties of ABA+ for Non-Monotonic Reasoning

We investigate properties of ABA+, a formalism that extends the well studied structured argumentation formalism Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with a preference handling mechanism. In particular, we establish desirable properties that ABA+ semantics exhibit. These pave way to the satisfaction by ABA+ of some (arguably) desirable principles of preference handling in argumentation and nonmonotonic reasoning, as well as non-monotonic inference properties of ABA+ under various semantics.Comment: This is a revised version of the paper presented at the worksho

Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches

In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation

A structured argumentation framework for detaching conditional obligations

We present a general formal argumentation system for dealing with the detachment of conditional obligations. Given a set of facts, constraints, and conditional obligations, we answer the question whether an unconditional obligation is detachable by considering reasons for and against its detachment. For the evaluation of arguments in favor of detaching obligations we use a Dung-style argumentation-theoretical semantics. We illustrate the modularity of the general framework by considering some extensions, and we compare the framework to some related approaches from the literature.Comment: This is our submission to DEON 2016, including the technical appendi

Improved Answer-Set Programming Encodings for Abstract Argumentation

The design of efficient solutions for abstract argumentation problems is a crucial step towards advanced argumentation systems. One of the most prominent approaches in the literature is to use Answer-Set Programming (ASP) for this endeavor. In this paper, we present new encodings for three prominent argumentation semantics using the concept of conditional literals in disjunctions as provided by the ASP-system clingo. Our new encodings are not only more succinct than previous versions, but also outperform them on standard benchmarks.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), Proceedings of ICLP 201

Data, problems, heuristics and results in cognitive metaphor research

Cognitive metaphor research is characterised by the diversity of rival theories. Starting from this observation, the paper focuses on the problem of how the unity and diversity of cognitive theories of metaphor can be accounted for. The first part of the paper outlines a suitable metascientific approach which emerges as a modification of B. von Eckardt’s notion of research framework. In the second part, by the help of this approach, some aspects of the sophisticated relationship between Lakoff and Johnson’s, Glucksberg’s, and Gentner’s theories are discussed. The main finding is that the data, the problems, the heuristics and the hypotheses which have been partly shaped by the rivals contribute to the development of the particular theories to a considerable extent