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

A Lightweight Defeasible Description Logic in Depth: Quantification in Rational Reasoning and Beyond

Description Logics (DLs) are increasingly successful knowledge representation formalisms, useful for any application requiring implicit derivation of knowledge from explicitly known facts. A prominent example domain benefiting from these formalisms since the 1990s is the biomedical field. This area contributes an intangible amount of facts and relations between low- and high-level concepts such as the constitution of cells or interactions between studied illnesses, their symptoms and remedies. DLs are well-suited for handling large formal knowledge repositories and computing inferable coherences throughout such data, relying on their well-founded first-order semantics. In particular, DLs of reduced expressivity have proven a tremendous worth for handling large ontologies due to their computational tractability. In spite of these assets and prevailing influence, classical DLs are not well-suited to adequately model some of the most intuitive forms of reasoning. The capability for abductive reasoning is imperative for any field subjected to incomplete knowledge and the motivation to complete it with typical expectations. When such default expectations receive contradicting evidence, an abductive formalism is able to retract previously drawn, conflicting conclusions. Common examples often include human reasoning or a default characterisation of properties in biology, such as the normal arrangement of organs in the human body. Treatment of such defeasible knowledge must be aware of exceptional cases - such as a human suffering from the congenital condition situs inversus - and therefore accommodate for the ability to retract defeasible conclusions in a non-monotonic fashion. Specifically tailored non-monotonic semantics have been continuously investigated for DLs in the past 30 years. A particularly promising approach, is rooted in the research by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor for preferential (propositional) logics and Rational Closure (RC). The biggest advantages of RC are its well-behaviour in terms of formal inference postulates and the efficient computation of defeasible entailments, by relying on a tractable reduction to classical reasoning in the underlying formalism. A major contribution of this work is a reorganisation of the core of this reasoning method, into an abstract framework formalisation. This framework is then easily instantiated to provide the reduction method for RC in DLs as well as more advanced closure operators, such as Relevant or Lexicographic Closure. In spite of their practical aptitude, we discovered that all reduction approaches fail to provide any defeasible conclusions for elements that only occur in the relational neighbourhood of the inspected elements. More explicitly, a distinguishing advantage of DLs over propositional logic is the capability to model binary relations and describe aspects of a related concept in terms of existential and universal quantification. Previous approaches to RC (and more advanced closures) are not able to derive typical behaviour for the concepts that occur within such quantification. The main contribution of this work is to introduce stronger semantics for the lightweight DL EL_bot with the capability to infer the expected entailments, while maintaining a close relation to the reduction method. We achieve this by introducing a new kind of first-order interpretation that allocates defeasible information on its elements directly. This allows to compare the level of typicality of such interpretations in terms of defeasible information satisfied at elements in the relational neighbourhood. A typicality preference relation then provides the means to single out those sets of models with maximal typicality. Based on this notion, we introduce two types of nested rational semantics, a sceptical and a selective variant, each capable of deriving the missing entailments under RC for arbitrarily nested quantified concepts. As a proof of versatility for our new semantics, we also show that the stronger Relevant Closure, can be imbued with typical information in the successors of binary relations. An extensive investigation into the computational complexity of our new semantics shows that the sceptical nested variant comes at considerable additional effort, while the selective semantics reside in the complexity of classical reasoning in the underlying DL, which remains tractable in our case