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

Finding Nash equilibria of bimatrix games

This thesis concerns the computational problem of finding one Nash equilibrium of a bimatrix game, a two-player game in strategic form. Bimatrix games are among the most basic models in non-cooperative game theory, and finding a Nash equilibrium is important for their analysis. The Lemke—Howson algorithm is the classical method for finding one Nash equilib-rium of a bimatrix game. In this thesis, we present a class of square bimatrix games for which this algorithm takes, even in the best case, an exponential number of steps in the dimension d of the game. Using polytope theory, the games are constructed using pairs of dual cyclic polytopes with 2d suitably labelled facets in d-space. The construc-tion is extended to two classes of non-square games where, in addition to exponentially long Lemke—Howson computations, finding an equilibrium by support enumeration takes exponential time on average. The Lemke—Howson algorithm, which is a complementary pivoting algorithm, finds at least one solution to the linear complementarity problem (LCP) derived from a bimatrix game. A closely related complementary pivoting algorithm by Lemke solves more general LCPs. A unified view of these two algorithms is presented, for the first time, as far as we know. Furthermore, we present an extension of the standard version of Lemke's algorithm that allows one more freedom than before when starting the algorithm

Automatic creation of boundary-representation models from single line drawings

This thesis presents methods for the automatic creation of boundary-representation models of polyhedral objects from single line drawings depicting the objects. This topic is important in that automated interpretation of freehand sketches would remove a bottleneck in current engineering design methods. The thesis does not consider conversion of freehand sketches to line drawings or methods which require manual intervention or multiple drawings. The thesis contains a number of novel contributions to the art of machine interpretation of line drawings. Line labelling has been extended by cataloguing the possible tetrahedral junctions and by development of heuristics aimed at selecting a preferred labelling from many possible. The ”bundling” method of grouping probably-parallel lines, and the use of feature detection to detect and classify hole loops, are both believed to be original. The junction-line-pair formalisation which translates the problem of depth estimation into a system of linear equations is new. Treating topological reconstruction as a tree-search is not only a new approach but tackles a problem which has not been fully investigated in previous work

Foundations of implementations for formal argumentation

We survey the current state of the art of general techniques, as well as specific software systems for solving tasks in abstract argumentation frameworks, structured argumentation frameworks, and approaches for visualizing and analysing argumentation. Furthermore, we discuss challenges and promising techniques such as parallel processing and approximation approaches. Finally, we address the issue of evaluating software systems empirically with links to the International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation