The Principle-Based Approach to Abstract Argumentation Semantics

The principle-based or axiomatic approach is a methodology to choose an argumentation semantics for a particular application, and to guide the search for new argumentation semantics. This article gives a complete classification of the fifteen main alternatives for argumentation semantics using the twenty-seven main principles discussed in the literature on abstract argumentation, extending Baroni and Giacomin’s original classification with other semantics and principles proposed in the literature. It also lays the foundations for a study of representation and (im)possibility results for abstract argumentation, and for a principle-based approach for extended argumentation such as bipolar frameworks, preference-based frameworks, abstract dialectical frameworks, weighted frameworks, and input/output frameworks

Explanation for case-based reasoning via abstract argumentation

Case-based reasoning (CBR) is extensively used in AI in support of several applications, to assess a new situation (or case) by recollecting past situations (or cases) and employing the ones most similar to the new situation to give the assessment. In this paper we study properties of a recently proposed method for CBR, based on instantiated Abstract Argumentation and referred to as AA-CBR, for problems where cases are represented by abstract factors and (positive or negative) outcomes, and an outcome for a new case, represented by abstract factors, needs to be established. In addition, we study properties of explanations in AA-CBR and define a new notion of lean explanations that utilize solely relevant cases. Both forms of explanations can be seen as dialogical processes between a proponent and an opponent, with the burden of proof falling on the proponent

The Design of the Fifth Answer Set Programming Competition

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a well-established paradigm of declarative programming that has been developed in the field of logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning. Advances in ASP solving technology are customarily assessed in competition events, as it happens for other closely-related problem-solving technologies like SAT/SMT, QBF, Planning and Scheduling. ASP Competitions are (usually) biennial events; however, the Fifth ASP Competition departs from tradition, in order to join the FLoC Olympic Games at the Vienna Summer of Logic 2014, which is expected to be the largest event in the history of logic. This edition of the ASP Competition series is jointly organized by the University of Calabria (Italy), the Aalto University (Finland), and the University of Genova (Italy), and is affiliated with the 30th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2014). It features a completely re-designed setup, with novelties involving the design of tracks, the scoring schema, and the adherence to a fixed modeling language in order to push the adoption of the ASP-Core-2 standard. Benchmark domains are taken from past editions, and best system packages submitted in 2013 are compared with new versions and solvers. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).Comment: 10 page

Knowledge Compilation of Logic Programs Using Approximation Fixpoint Theory

To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), Proceedings of ICLP 2015 Recent advances in knowledge compilation introduced techniques to compile \emph{positive} logic programs into propositional logic, essentially exploiting the constructive nature of the least fixpoint computation. This approach has several advantages over existing approaches: it maintains logical equivalence, does not require (expensive) loop-breaking preprocessing or the introduction of auxiliary variables, and significantly outperforms existing algorithms. Unfortunately, this technique is limited to \emph{negation-free} programs. In this paper, we show how to extend it to general logic programs under the well-founded semantics. We develop our work in approximation fixpoint theory, an algebraical framework that unifies semantics of different logics. As such, our algebraical results are also applicable to autoepistemic logic, default logic and abstract dialectical frameworks

Formalisation and logical properties of the maximal ideal recursive semantics for weighted defeasible logic programming

Possibilistic defeasible logic programming (P-DeLP) is a logic programming framework which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, in which defeasible rules are attached with weights expressing their relative belief or preference strength. In P-DeLP,a conclusion succeeds if there exists an argument that entails the conclusion and this argument is found to be undefeated by a warrant procedure that systematically explores the universe of arguments in order to present an exhaustive synthesis of the relevant chains of pros and cons for the given conclusion. Recently, we have proposed a new warrant recursive semantics for P-DeLP, called Recursive P-DeLP (RP-DeLP for short), based on the claim that the acceptance of an argument should imply also the acceptance of all its sub-arguments which reflect the different premises on which the argument is based. This paper explores the relationship between the exhaustive dialectical analysis-based semantics of P-DeLP and the recursive-based semantics of RP-DeLP, and analyses a non-monotonic inference operator for RP-DeLP which models the expansion of a given program by adding new weighted facts associated with warranted conclusions. Given the recursive-based semantics of RP-DeLP, we have also implemented an argumentation framework for RP-DeLP that is able to compute not only the output of warranted and blocked conclusions, but also explain the reasons behind the status of each conclusion. We have developed this framework as a stand-alone application with a simple text-based input/output interface to be able to use it as part of other artificial intelligence systemsThis research was partially supported by the Spanish projects EdeTRI (TIN2012-39348-C02-01) and AT (CONSOLIDER- INGENIO 2010, CSD2007-00022)

Gaming argumentation framework (GAF): Pfizer or AstraZeneca Vaccine of The COVID-19 as a case study

Dung’s argumentation frameworks (AF) were introduced in the last century it works with the justification of the argument. This framework analyzes attacks of arguments, it works away on the characteristics of arguments structures and words was used in the attack between each other, etc. These properties make this model attractive as it decreases most of the complexities included when applying the argumentation system. This system can be applied to different states such as to evaluate the arguments or with the supported argument to be defense and attacked arguments. In addition, the group of experts may be making argumentation about some cases. In the latter scenario, agents with potentially dissimilar arguments and/or opinions are used to evaluate the arguments, allowing for the consideration of several sets of arguments and attack relations. This framework is extended to propose a new system called gaming argumentation framework (GAF). It helps to make a decision about the current problem by making claims and attack determination to the arguments, then putting the result of these claims and attack determination to the game theory with two players to achieve the final results that help the decision-maker to decide about the current problem. Finally, compare this framework with other frameworks, and provide an example to explain how the proposed framework performs its intended purpose, where decision making is very important in the medical field therefore this paper taking the confusion on the COVID-19 vaccines as a case study to solve Pfizer or AstraZeneca problem and make the decision about this case