Theoretical Analysis and Implementation of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with Domain Assignments

A representational limitation of current argumentation frameworks is their inability to deal with sets of entities and their properties, for example to express that an argument is applicable for a specific set of entities that have a certain property and not applicable for all the others. In order to address this limitation, we recently introduced Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with Domain Assignments (AAFDs), which extend Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AAFs) by assigning to each argument a domain of application, i.e., a set of entities for which the argument is believed to apply. We provided formal definitions of AAFDs and their semantics, showed with examples how this model can support various features of commonsense and non-monotonic reasoning, and studied its relation to AAFs. In this paper, aiming to provide a deeper insight into this new model, we present more results on the relation between AAFDs and AAFs and the properties of the AAFD semantics, and we introduce an alternative, more expressive way to define the domains of arguments using logical predicates. We also offer an implementation of AAFDs based on Answer Set Programming (ASP) and evaluate it using a range of experiments with synthetic datasets

Joint attacks and accrual in argumentation frameworks

While modelling arguments, it is often useful to represent joint attacks, i.e., cases where multiple arguments jointly attack another (note that this is different from the case where multiple arguments attack another in isolation). Based on this remark, the notion of joint attacks has been proposed as a useful extension of classical Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, and has been shown to constitute a genuine extension in terms of expressive power. In this chapter, we review various works considering the notion of joint attacks from various perspectives, including abstract and structured frameworks. Moreover, we present results detailing the relation among frameworks with joint attacks and classical argumentation frameworks, computational aspects, and applications of joint attacks. Last but not least, we propose a roadmap for future research on the subject, identifying gaps in current research and important research directions.Fil: Bikakis, Antonis. University College London; Estados UnidosFil: Cohen, Andrea. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Dvoák, Wolfgang. Technische Universitat Wien; AustriaFil: Flouris, Giorgos. Foundation for Research and Technology; GreciaFil: Parsons, Simon. University of Lincoln; Reino Unid

Arguments to believe and beliefs to argue. Epistemic logics for argumentation and its dynamics

Arguing and believing are two skills that have typically played a crucial role in the analysis of human cognition. Both notions have received notable attention from a broad range of disciplines, including linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and computer science. The main goal of this dissertation consists in studying from a logical perspective (that is, focused on reasoning) some of the existing relations between beliefs and argumentation. From a methodological point of view, we propose to combine two well-known families of formalisms for knowledge representation that have been relatively disconnected (with some salient exceptions): epistemic logic (Fagin et al., 2004; Meyer and van der Hoek, 1995) together with its dynamic extensions (van Ditmarsch et al., 2007; van Benthem, 2011), on the one hand, and formal argumentation (Baroni et al., 2018; Gabbay et al., 2021), on the other hand. This choice is arguably natural. Epistemic logic provides well-known tools for qualitatively representing epistemic attitudes (belief, among them). Formal argumentation, on its side, is the broad research field where mathematical representations of argumentative phenomena are investigated. Moreover, the notion of awareness, as treated in the epistemic logic tradition since Fagin and Halpern (1987), can be used as a theoretical bridge among both areas. This dissertation is presented as a collection of papers [compendio de publicaciones], meaning that its main contributions are contained in the reprint of six works that have been previously published, placed in Chapter 4. In chapter 1, we pursue a general introduction to the research problem. Chapter 2 is devoted to the presentation of the technical tools employed through the thesis. Chapter 3 explains how the contributions approach the research problem. Chapter 5 provides a general discussion of results, by analysing closely related work. We conclude in Chapter 6 with some remarks and open paths for future research

Synthesizing Argumentation Frameworks from Examples

Peer reviewe