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

Abstract Argumentation and Answer Set Programming: Two Faces of Nelson’s Logic

In this work, we show that both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks can be interpreted in terms of Nelson’s constructive logic N4. We do so by formalising, in this logic, two principles that we call noncontradictory inference and strengthened closed world assumption: the first states that no belief can be held based on contradictory evidence while the latter forces both unknown and contradictory evidence to be regarded as false. Using these principles, both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks are translated into constructive logic in a modular way and using the object language. Logic programming implication and abstract argumentation supports become, in the translation, a new implication connective following the noncontradictory inference principle. Attacks are then represented by combining this new implication with strong negation. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)

Cooperative Approach for Composite Ontology Mapping

This paper proposes a cooperative approach for composite ontology mapping. We first present an extended classification of automated ontology matching and propose an automatic composite solution for the matching problem based on cooperation. In our proposal, agents apply individual mapping algorithms and cooperate in order to change their individual results. We assume that the approaches are complementary to each other and their combination produces better results than the individual ones. Next, we compare our model with three state of the art matching systems. The results are promising specially for what concerns precision and recall. Finally, we propose an argumentation formalism as an extension of our initial model. We compare our argumentation model with the matching systems, showing improvements on the results

On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks

This paper tackles the fundamental questions arising when looking at argumentation frameworks as interacting components, characterized by an Input/Output behavior, rather than as isolated monolithical entities. This modeling stance arises naturally in some application contexts, like multi-agent systems, but, more importantly, has a crucial impact on several general application-independent issues, like argumentation dynamics, argument summarization and explanation, incremental computation, and inter-formalism translation. Pursuing this research direction, the paper introduces a general modeling approach and provides a comprehensive set of theoretical results putting the intuitive notion of Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks on a solid formal ground. This is achieved by combining three main ingredients. First, several novel notions are introduced at the representation level, notably those of argumentation framework with input, of argumentation multipole, and of replacement of multipoles within a traditional argumentation framework. Second, several relevant features of argumentation semantics are identified and formally characterized. In particular, the canonical local function provides an input-aware semantics characterization and a suite of decomposability properties are introduced, concerning the correspondences between semantics outcomes at global and local level. The third ingredient glues the former ones, as it consists of the investigation of some semantics-dependent properties of the newly introduced entities, namely S-equivalence of multipoles, S-legitimacy and S-safeness of replacements, and transparency of a semantics with respect to replacements. Altogether they provide the basis and draw the limits of sound interchangeability of multipoles within traditional frameworks. The paper develops an extensive analysis of all the concepts listed above, covering seven well-known literature semantics and taking into account various, more or less constrained, ways of partitioning an argumentation framework. Diverse examples, taken from the literature, are used to illustrate the application of the results obtained and, finally, an extensive discussion of the related literature is provided

Metalogical Contributions to the Nonmonotonic Theory of Abstract Argumentation

The study of nonmonotonic logics is one mayor field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The reason why such kind of formalisms are so attractive to model human reasoning is that they allow to withdraw former conclusion. At the end of the 1980s the novel idea of using argumentation to model nonmonotonic reasoning emerged in AI. Nowadays argumentation theory is a vibrant research area in AI, covering aspects of knowledge representation, multi-agent systems, and also philosophical questions. Phan Minh Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) play a dominant role in the field of argumentation. In AFs arguments and attacks between them are treated as primitives, i.e. the internal structure of arguments is not considered. The major focus is on resolving conflicts. To this end a variety of semantics have been defined, each of them specifying acceptable sets of arguments, so-called extensions, in a particular way. Although, Dung-style AFs are among the simplest argumentation systems one can think of, this approach is still powerful. It can be seen as a general theory capturing several nonmonotonic formalisms as well as a tool for solving well-known problems as the stable-marriage problem. This thesis is mainly concerned with the investigation of metalogical properties of Dung’s abstract theory. In particular, we provide cardinality, monotonicity and splitting results as well as characterization theorems for equivalence notions. The established results have theoretical and practical gains. On the one hand, they yield deeper theoretical insights into how this nonmonotonic theory works, and on the other the obtained results can be used to refine existing algorithms or even give rise to new computational procedures. A further main part is the study of problems regarding dynamic aspects of abstract argumentation. Most noteworthy we solve the so-called enforcing and the more general minimal change problem for a huge number of semantics