A QBF-based Formalization of Abstract Argumentation Semantics

Supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSY project).Peer reviewedPostprin

Minimal Paradefinite Logics for Reasoning with Incompleteness and Inconsistency

Paradefinite (`beyond the definite\u27) logics are logics that can be used for handling contradictory or partial information. As such, paradefinite logics should be both paraconsistent and paracomplete. In this paper we consider the simplest semantic framework for defining paradefinite logics, consisting of four-valued matrices, and study the better accepted logics that are induced by these matrices

Approximation Fixpoint Theory for Non-Deterministic Operators and Its Application in Disjunctive Logic Programming

Approximation fixpoint theory (AFT) constitutes an abstract and general algebraic framework for studying the semantics of nonmonotonic logics. It provides a unifying study of the semantics of different formalisms for nonmonotonic reasoning, such as logic programming, default logic and autoepistemic logic. In this paper we extend AFT to non-deterministic constructs such as disjunctive information. This is done by generalizing the main constructions and corresponding results to non-deterministic operators, whose ranges are sets of elements rather than single elements. The applicability and usefulness of this generalization is illustrated in the context of disjunctive logic programming

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

Garth Leavitt and Bob Allen v. Glendon Corporation : Brief of Appellant

Appeal from Judgment Entered in the Second Circuit Court, State of Utah Davis County, Bountiful Department, Honorable S. Mark Johnson, Presidin

Explainable Logic-Based Argumentation

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has gained increasing interest in recent years in the argumentation community. In this paper we consider this topic in the context of logic-based argumentation, showing that the latter is a particularly promising paradigm for facilitating explainable AI. In particular, we provide two representations of abductive reasoning by sequent-based argumentation frameworks and show that such frameworks successfully cope with related challenges, such as the handling of synonyms, justifications, and logical equivalences