Some Supplementaries to The Counting Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and non-extensions. In order to reason with a specific semantics, one needs to take a credulous or skeptical approach, i.e. an argument is eventually accepted, if it is accepted in one or all extensions, respectively. In our previous work \cite{ref-pu2015counting}, we have proposed a novel semantics, called \emph{counting semantics}, which allows for a more fine-grained assessment to arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders based on argument graph and argument game. In this paper, we continue our previous work by presenting some supplementaries about how to choose the damaging factor for the counting semantics, and what relationships with some existing approaches, such as Dung's classical semantics, generic gradual valuations. Lastly, an axiomatic perspective on the ranking semantics induced by our counting semantics are presented.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures, ICTAI 201

The Complexity of Satisfiability for Sub-Boolean Fragments of ALC

The standard reasoning problem, concept satisfiability, in the basic description logic ALC is PSPACE-complete, and it is EXPTIME-complete in the presence of unrestricted axioms. Several fragments of ALC, notably logics in the FL, EL, and DL-Lite family, have an easier satisfiability problem; sometimes it is even tractable. All these fragments restrict the use of Boolean operators in one way or another. We look at systematic and more general restrictions of the Boolean operators and establish the complexity of the concept satisfiability problem in the presence of axioms. We separate tractable from intractable cases.Comment: 17 pages, accepted (in short version) to Description Logic Workshop 201