Investigating subclasses of abstract dialectical frameworks

Dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are generalizations of Dung argumentation frameworks where arbitrary relationships among arguments can be formalized. This additional expressibility comes with the price of higher computational complexity, thus an understanding of potentially easier subclasses is essential. Compared to Dung argumentation frameworks, where several subclasses such as acyclic and symmetric frameworks are well understood, there has been no in-depth analysis for ADFs in such direction yet (with the notable exception of bipolar ADFs). In this work, we introduce certain subclasses of ADFs and investigate their properties. In particular, we show that for acyclic ADFs, the different semantics coincide. On the other hand, we show that the concept of symmetry is less powerful for ADFs and further restrictions are required to achieve results that are similar to the known ones for Dung's frameworks. A particular such subclass (support-free symmetric ADFs) turns out to be closely related to argumentation frameworks with collective attacks (SETAFs); we investigate this relation in detail and obtain as a by-product that even for SETAFs symmetry is less powerful than for AFs. We also discuss the role of odd-length cycles in the subclasses we have introduced. Finally, we analyse the expressiveness of the ADF subclasses we introduce in terms of signatures

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature

Matching in the Pi-Calculus

We study whether, in the pi-calculus, the match prefix-a conditional operator testing two names for (syntactic) equality-is expressible via the other operators. Previously, Carbone and Maffeis proved that matching is not expressible this way under rather strong requirements (preservation and reflection of observables). Later on, Gorla developed a by now widely-tested set of criteria for encodings that allows much more freedom (e.g. instead of direct translations of observables it allows comparison of calculi with respect to reachability of successful states). In this paper, we offer a considerably stronger separation result on the non-expressibility of matching using only Gorla's relaxed requirements.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2014, arXiv:1408.127

On Bisimulations for Description Logics

We study bisimulations for useful description logics. The simplest among the considered logics is $\mathcal{ALC}_{reg}$ (a variant of PDL). The others extend that logic with inverse roles, nominals, quantified number restrictions, the universal role, and/or the concept constructor for expressing the local reflexivity of a role. They also allow role axioms. We give results about invariance of concepts, TBoxes and ABoxes, preservation of RBoxes and knowledge bases, and the Hennessy-Milner property w.r.t. bisimulations in the considered description logics. Using the invariance results we compare the expressiveness of the considered description logics w.r.t. concepts, TBoxes and ABoxes. Our results about separating the expressiveness of description logics are naturally extended to the case when instead of $\mathcal{ALC}_{reg}$ we have any sublogic of $\mathcal{ALC}_{reg}$ that extends $\mathcal{ALC}$. We also provide results on the largest auto-bisimulations and quotient interpretations w.r.t. such equivalence relations. Such results are useful for minimizing interpretations and concept learning in description logics. To deal with minimizing interpretations for the case when the considered logic allows quantified number restrictions and/or the constructor for the local reflexivity of a role, we introduce a new notion called QS-interpretation, which is needed for obtaining expected results. By adapting Hopcroft's automaton minimization algorithm and the Paige-Tarjan algorithm, we give efficient algorithms for computing the partition corresponding to the largest auto-bisimulation of a finite interpretation.Comment: 42 page