A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation Semantics for Extended Logic Programming and its Application to the Well-founded Semantics

Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships between the semantics and examine some essential properties concerning consistency and the coherence principle, which relates default negation and explicit negation. Most significantly, we place existing semantics put forward in the literature in our hierarchy and identify a particular argumentation semantics for which we prove equivalence to the paraconsistent well-founded semantics with explicit negation, WFSX$_p$. Finally, we present a general proof theory, based on dialogue trees, and show that it is sound and complete with respect to the argumentation semantics.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin

Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach

The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions. In DeLP an argumentation formalism will be used for deciding between contradictory goals. Queries will be supported by arguments that could be defeated by other arguments. A query q will succeed when there is an argument A for q that is warranted, ie, the argument A that supports q is found undefeated by a warrant procedure that implements a dialectical analysis. The defeasible argumentation basis of DeLP allows to build applications that deal with incomplete and contradictory information in dynamic domains. Thus, the resulting approach is suitable for representing agent's knowledge and for providing an argumentation based reasoning mechanism to agents.Comment: 43 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

On Generalized Records and Spatial Conjunction in Role Logic

We have previously introduced role logic as a notation for describing properties of relational structures in shape analysis, databases and knowledge bases. A natural fragment of role logic corresponds to two-variable logic with counting and is therefore decidable. We show how to use role logic to describe open and closed records, as well the dual of records, inverse records. We observe that the spatial conjunction operation of separation logic naturally models record concatenation. Moreover, we show how to eliminate the spatial conjunction of formulas of quantifier depth one in first-order logic with counting. As a result, allowing spatial conjunction of formulas of quantifier depth one preserves the decidability of two-variable logic with counting. This result applies to two-variable role logic fragment as well. The resulting logic smoothly integrates type system and predicate calculus notation and can be viewed as a natural generalization of the notation for constraints arising in role analysis and similar shape analysis approaches.Comment: 30 pages. A version appears in SAS 200