On the correspondence between abstract dialectical frameworks and nonmonotonic conditional logics

The exact relationship between formal argumentation and nonmonotonic logics is a research topic that keeps on eluding researchers despite recent intensified efforts. We contribute to a deeper understanding of this relation by investigating characterizations of abstract dialectical frameworks in conditional logics for nonmonotonic reasoning. We first show that in general, there is a gap between argumentation and conditional semantics when applying several intuitive translations, but then prove that this gap can be closed when focusing on specific classes of translations

A postulate-driven study of logical argumentation

Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modeling non-monotonic reasoning with conflicting information. In this paper we provide a comprehensive postulate-based study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks and a full characterization of their semantics and inference relations. In this way we identify well-behaved formal argumentative models of drawing logically justified inferences from a given set of possibly conflicting defeasible, as well as strict assumptions. Given some desiderata in terms of rationality postulates, we consider the conditions that an argumentation framework should fulfill for the desiderata to hold. One purpose of this approach is to assist designers to “plug-in” pre-defined formalisms according to actual needs. To this end, we present a classification of argumentation frameworks relative to the types of attacks they implement. In turn, for each class we determine which desiderata are satisfied. Our study is highly abstract, supposing only a minimal set of requirements on the considered underlying deductive systems, and in this way covering a broad range of formalisms, including classical, intuitionistic and modal logics