Arguments using ontological and causal knowledge (FoIKS 2014)

International audienceWe explore an approach to reasoning about causes via argumentation. We consider a causal model for a physical system, and we look for arguments about facts. Some arguments are meant to provide explanations of facts whereas some challenge these explanations and so on. At the root of argumentation here, are causal links ({A_1, ... ,A_n} causes B) and also ontological links (c_1 is_a} c_2). We introduce here a logical approach which provides a candidate explanation ({A_1, ... ,A_n} explains {B_1, ... ,B_m}) by resorting to an underlying causal link substantiated with appropriate ontological links. Argumentation is then at work from these various explanation links. A case study is developed: a severe storm Xynthia that devastated a county in France in 2010, with an unaccountably high number of casualties

Belief Revision in Structured Probabilistic Argumentation

In real-world applications, knowledge bases consisting of all the information at hand for a specific domain, along with the current state of affairs, are bound to contain contradictory data coming from different sources, as well as data with varying degrees of uncertainty attached. Likewise, an important aspect of the effort associated with maintaining knowledge bases is deciding what information is no longer useful; pieces of information (such as intelligence reports) may be outdated, may come from sources that have recently been discovered to be of low quality, or abundant evidence may be available that contradicts them. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic structured argumentation framework that arises from the extension of Presumptive Defeasible Logic Programming (PreDeLP) with probabilistic models, and argue that this formalism is capable of addressing the basic issues of handling contradictory and uncertain data. Then, to address the last issue, we focus on the study of non-prioritized belief revision operations over probabilistic PreDeLP programs. We propose a set of rationality postulates -- based on well-known ones developed for classical knowledge bases -- that characterize how such operations should behave, and study a class of operators along with theoretical relationships with the proposed postulates, including a representation theorem stating the equivalence between this class and the class of operators characterized by the postulates

A topological characterization of the stable and minimal model classes of propositional logic programs

In terms of the arithmetic hierarchy, the complexity of the set of minimal models and of the set of stable models of a propositional general logic program has previously been described. However, not every set of interpretations of this level of complexity is obtained as such a set. In this paper we identify the sets of interpretations which are minimal or stable model classes by their properties in an appropriate topology on the space of interpretations. Closely connected with the topological characterization, in parallel with results previously known for stable model classes we obtain for minimal model classes both a normal-form representation as the set of minimal models of a prerequisite-free program and a logical description in terms of formulas. Our approach centers on the relation which we establish between stable and minimal model classes. We include examples of calculations which can be performed by these methods.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/41770/1/10472_2005_Article_BF01536400.pd

Using Argumentation Logic for Firewall Policy Specification and Analysis

Firewalls are important perimeter security mechanisms that imple-ment an organisation's network security requirements and can be notoriously difficult to configure correctly. Given their widespread use, it is crucial that network administrators have tools to translate their security requirements into firewall configuration rules and ensure that these rules are consistent with each other. In this paper we propose an approach to firewall policy specification and analysis that uses a formal framework for argumentation based preference reasoning. By allowing administrators to define network abstractions (e.g. subnets, protocols etc) security requirements can be specified in a declarative manner using high-level terms. Also it is possible to specify preferences to express the importance of one requirement over another. The use of a formal framework means that the security requirements defined can be automatically analysed for inconsistencies and firewall configurations can be automatically generated. We demonstrate that the technique allows any inconsistency property, including those identified in previous research, to be specified and automatically checked and the use of an argumentation reasoning framework provides administrators with information regarding the causes of the inconsistency

Encoding argument graphs in logic

International audienceArgument graphs are a common way to model argumentative reasoning. For reasoning or computational purposes, such graphs may have to be encoded in a given logic. This paper aims at providing a systematic approach for this encoding. This approach relies upon a general, principle-based characterization of argumentation semantics

The Complexity of Repairing, Adjusting, and Aggregating of Extensions in Abstract Argumentation

We study the computational complexity of problems that arise in abstract argumentation in the context of dynamic argumentation, minimal change, and aggregation. In particular, we consider the following problems where always an argumentation framework F and a small positive integer k are given. - The Repair problem asks whether a given set of arguments can be modified into an extension by at most k elementary changes (i.e., the extension is of distance k from the given set). - The Adjust problem asks whether a given extension can be modified by at most k elementary changes into an extension that contains a specified argument. - The Center problem asks whether, given two extensions of distance k, whether there is a "center" extension that is a distance at most (k-1) from both given extensions. We study these problems in the framework of parameterized complexity, and take the distance k as the parameter. Our results covers several different semantics, including admissible, complete, preferred, semi-stable and stable semantics

Proximity to a Nearly Superconducting Quantum Critical Liquid

The coupling between superconductors and a quantum critical liquid that is nearly superconducting provides natural interpretation for the Josephson effect over unexpectedly long junctions, and the remarkable stripe-spacing dependence of the critical temperature in LSCO and YBCO superconductors.Comment: four two-column pages, no figure