5,378 research outputs found
"Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks
Dung's abstract framework for argumentation enables a study of the
interactions between arguments based solely on an ``attack'' binary relation on
the set of arguments. Various ways to solve conflicts between contradictory
pieces of information have been proposed in the context of argumentation,
nonmonotonic reasoning or logic programming, and can be captured by appropriate
semantics within Dung's framework. A common feature of these semantics is that
one can always maximize in some sense the set of acceptable arguments. We
propose in this paper to extend Dung's framework in order to allow for the
representation of what we call ``restricted'' arguments: these arguments should
only be used if absolutely necessary, that is, in order to support other
arguments that would otherwise be defeated. We modify Dung's preferred
semantics accordingly: a set of arguments becomes acceptable only if it
contains a minimum of restricted arguments, for a maximum of unrestricted
arguments.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figure
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
On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics
This work has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant Ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project), by CNPq (Universal 2012 – Proc. 473110/2012-1), and by CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).Peer reviewedPreprin
The Complexity of Repairing, Adjusting, and Aggregating of Extensions in Abstract Argumentation
We study the computational complexity of problems that arise in abstract
argumentation in the context of dynamic argumentation, minimal change, and
aggregation. In particular, we consider the following problems where always an
argumentation framework F and a small positive integer k are given.
- The Repair problem asks whether a given set of arguments can be modified
into an extension by at most k elementary changes (i.e., the extension is of
distance k from the given set).
- The Adjust problem asks whether a given extension can be modified by at
most k elementary changes into an extension that contains a specified argument.
- The Center problem asks whether, given two extensions of distance k,
whether there is a "center" extension that is a distance at most (k-1) from
both given extensions.
We study these problems in the framework of parameterized complexity, and
take the distance k as the parameter. Our results covers several different
semantics, including admissible, complete, preferred, semi-stable and stable
semantics
On the Existence of Characterization Logics and Fundamental Properties of Argumentation Semantics
Given the large variety of existing logical formalisms it is of utmost importance
to select the most adequate one for a specific purpose, e.g. for representing
the knowledge relevant for a particular application or for using the formalism
as a modeling tool for problem solving. Awareness of the nature of a logical
formalism, in other words, of its fundamental intrinsic properties, is indispensable
and provides the basis of an informed choice.
One such intrinsic property of logic-based knowledge representation languages
is the context-dependency of pieces of knowledge. In classical propositional
logic, for example, there is no such context-dependence: whenever two
sets of formulas are equivalent in the sense of having the same models (ordinary
equivalence), then they are mutually replaceable in arbitrary contexts (strong
equivalence). However, a large number of commonly used formalisms are not
like classical logic which leads to a series of interesting developments. It turned
out that sometimes, to characterize strong equivalence in formalism L, we can
use ordinary equivalence in formalism L0: for example, strong equivalence in
normal logic programs under stable models can be characterized by the standard
semantics of the logic of here-and-there. Such results about the existence of
characterizing logics has rightly been recognized as important for the study of
concrete knowledge representation formalisms and raise a fundamental question:
Does every formalism have one? In this thesis, we answer this question
with a qualified “yes”. More precisely, we show that the important case of
considering only finite knowledge bases guarantees the existence of a canonical
characterizing formalism. Furthermore, we argue that those characterizing
formalisms can be seen as classical, monotonic logics which are uniquely determined (up to isomorphism) regarding their model theory.
The other main part of this thesis is devoted to argumentation semantics
which play the flagship role in Dung’s abstract argumentation theory. Almost
all of them are motivated by an easily understandable intuition of what should
be acceptable in the light of conflicts. However, although these intuitions equip
us with short and comprehensible formal definitions it turned out that their
intrinsic properties such as existence and uniqueness, expressibility, replaceability
and verifiability are not that easily accessible. We review the mentioned
properties for almost all semantics available in the literature. In doing so we
include two main axes: namely first, the distinction between extension-based
and labelling-based versions and secondly, the distinction of different kind of
argumentation frameworks such as finite or unrestricted ones
- …