On the Equivalence between Logic Programming Semantics and Argumentation Semantics

Publisher PD

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

Exploiting Parallelism for Hard Problems in Abstract Argumentation

Abstract argumentation framework (AF) is a unifying framework able to encompass a variety of nonmonotonic reasoning approaches, logic programming and computational argumentation. Yet, efficient approaches for most of the decision and enumeration problems associated to AF s are missing, thus potentially limiting the efficacy of argumentation-based approaches in real domains. In this paper, we present an algorithm for enumerating the preferred extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks which exploits parallel computation. To this purpose, the SCC-recursive semantics definition schema is adopted, where extensions are defined at the level of specific sub-frameworks. The algorithm shows significant performance improvements in large frameworks, in terms of number of solutions found and speedup

Developments in abstract and assumption-based argumentation and their application in logic programming

Logic Programming (LP) and Argumentation are two paradigms for knowledge representation and reasoning under incomplete information. Even though the two paradigms share common features, they constitute mostly separate areas of research. In this thesis, we present novel developments in Argumentation, in particular in Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) and Abstract Argumentation (AA), and show how they can 1) extend the understanding of the relationship between the two paradigms and 2) provide solutions to problematic reasoning outcomes in LP. More precisely, we introduce assumption labellings as a novel way to express the semantics of ABA and prove a more straightforward relationship with LP semantics than found in previous work. Building upon these correspondence results, we apply methods for argument construction and conflict detection from ABA, and for conflict resolution from AA, to construct justifications of unexpected or unexplained LP solutions under the answer set semantics. We furthermore characterise reasons for the non-existence of stable semantics in AA and apply these findings to characterise different scenarios in which the computation of meaningful solutions in LP under the answer set semantics fails.Open Acces

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

Labellings for assumption-based and abstract argumentation

The semantics of Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) frameworks are traditionally characterised as assumption extensions, i.e. sets of accepted assumptions. Assumption labellings are an alternative way to express the semantics of flat ABA frameworks, where one of the labels in, out, or undec is assigned to each assumption. They are beneficial for applications where it is important to distinguish not only between accepted and non-accepted assumptions, but further divide the non-accepted assumptions into those which are clearly rejected and those which are neither accepted nor rejected and thus undecided. We prove one-to-one correspondences between assumption labellings and extensions for the admissible, grounded, complete, preferred, ideal, semi-stable and stable semantics. We also show how the definition of assumption labellings for flat ABA frameworks can be extended to assumption labellings for any (flat and non-flat) ABA framework, enabling reasoning with a wider range of scenarios. Since flat ABA frameworks are structured instances of Abstract Argumentation (AA) frameworks, we furthermore investigate the relation between assumption labellings for flat ABA frameworks and argument labellings for AA frameworks. Building upon prior work on complete assumption and argument labellings, we prove one-to-one correspondences between grounded, preferred, ideal, and stable assumption and argument labellings, and a one-to-many correspondence between admissible assumption and argument labellings. Inspired by the notion of admissible assumption labellings we introduce committed admissible argument labellings for AA frameworks, which correspond more closely to admissible assumption labellings of ABA frameworks than admissible argument labellings do

Abduction and Dialogical Proof in Argumentation and Logic Programming

We develop a model of abduction in abstract argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain the support of an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e., finding hypothe- ses that explain skeptical/credulous support) and we show that our model can be instantiated on the basis of abductive logic programs.Comment: Appears in the Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014