On the Relative Expressiveness of Argumentation Frameworks, Normal Logic Programs and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

We analyse the expressiveness of the two-valued semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and abstract dialectical frameworks. By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of two-valued interpretations over a given propositional signature using only atoms from that signature. While the computational complexity of the two-valued model existence problem for all these languages is (almost) the same, we show that the languages form a neat hierarchy with respect to their expressiveness.Comment: Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014

Implementing Default and Autoepistemic Logics via the Logic of GK

The logic of knowledge and justified assumptions, also known as logic of grounded knowledge (GK), was proposed by Lin and Shoham as a general logic for nonmonotonic reasoning. To date, it has been used to embed in it default logic (propositional case), autoepistemic logic, Turner's logic of universal causation, and general logic programming under stable model semantics. Besides showing the generality of GK as a logic for nonmonotonic reasoning, these embeddings shed light on the relationships among these other logics. In this paper, for the first time, we show how the logic of GK can be embedded into disjunctive logic programming in a polynomial but non-modular translation with new variables. The result can then be used to compute the extension/expansion semantics of default logic, autoepistemic logic and Turner's logic of universal causation by disjunctive ASP solvers such as claspD(-2), DLV, GNT and cmodels.Comment: Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014

Approximating Operators and Semantics for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

We provide a systematic in-depth study of the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), a recent generalisation of Dung\''s abstract argumentation frameworks. This is done by associating with an ADF its characteristic one-step consequence operator and defining various semantics for ADFs as different fixpoints of this operator. We first show that several existing semantical notions are faithfully captured by our definition, then proceed to define new ADF semantics and show that they are proper generalisations of existing argumentation semantics from the literature. Most remarkably, this operator-based approach allows us to compare ADFs to related nonmonotonic formalisms like Dung argumentation frameworks and propositional logic programs. We use polynomial, faithful and modular translations to relate the formalisms, and our results show that both abstract argumentation frameworks and abstract dialectical frameworks are at most as expressive as propositional normal logic programs

Compact Argumentation Frameworks

Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) are one of the most studied formalisms in AI. In this work, we introduce a certain subclass of AFs which we call compact. Given an extension-based semantics, the corresponding compact AFs are characterized by the feature that each argument of the AF occurs in at least one extension. This not only guarantees a certain notion of fairness; compact AFs are thus also minimal in the sense that no argument can be removed without changing the outcome. We address the following questions in the paper: (1) How are the classes of compact AFs related for different semantics? (2) Under which circumstances can AFs be transformed into equivalent compact ones? (3) Finally, we show that compact AFs are indeed a non-trivial subclass, since the verification problem remains coNP-hard for certain semantics.Comment: Contribution to the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, 2014, Vienn

Summary Report of The First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation

Computational models of argumentation are an active research discipline within Artificial Intelligence that has grown since the beginning of the 1990s (Dung 1995). While still a young field when compared to areas such as SAT solving and Logic Programming, the argumentation community is very active, with a conference series (COMMA, which began in 2006) and a variety of workshops and special issues of journals. Argumentation has also worked its way into a variety of applications. For example, Williams et al. (2015) described how argumentation techniques are used for recommending cancer treatments, while Toniolo et al. (2015) detail how argumentation-based techniques can support critical thinking and collaborative scientific inquiry or intelligence analysis. Many of the problems that argumentation deals with are computationally difficult, and applications utilising argumentation therefore require efficient solvers. To encourage this line of research, we organised the First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA), with the intention of assessing and promoting state of the art solvers for abstract argumentation problems, and to identify families of challenging benchmarks for such solvers. The objective of ICCMA’15 is to allow researchers to compare the performance of different solvers systematically on common benchmarks and rules. Moreover, as witnessed by competitions in other AI disciplines such as planning and SAT solving, we see ICCMA as a new pillar of the community which provides information and insights on the current state of the art, and highlights future challenges and developments. This article summarises the first ICCMA held in 2015 (ICCMA’15). In this competition, solvers were invited to address standard decision and enumeration problems of abstract argumentation frameworks (Dunne and Wooldridge 2009). Solvers’ performance is evaluated based on their time taken to provide a correct solution for a problem; incorrect results were discarded. More information about the competition, including complete results and benchmarks, can be found on the ICCMA website

EMIL: Extracting Meaning from Inconsistent Language

Developments in formal and computational theories of argumentation reason with inconsistency. Developments in Computational Linguistics extract arguments from large textual corpora. Both developments head in the direction of automated processing and reasoning with inconsistent, linguistic knowledge so as to explain and justify arguments in a humanly accessible form. Yet, there is a gap between the coarse-grained, semi-structured knowledge-bases of computational theories of argumentation and fine-grained, highly-structured inferences from knowledge-bases derived from natural language. We identify several subproblems which must be addressed in order to bridge the gap. We provide a direct semantics for argumentation. It has attractive properties in terms of expressivity and complexity, enables reasoning by cases, and can be more highly structured. For language processing, we work with an existing controlled natural language (CNL), which interfaces with our computational theory of argumentation; the tool processes natural language input, translates them into a form for automated inference engines, outputs argument extensions, then generates natural language statements. The key novel adaptation incorporates the defeasible expression ‘it is usual that’. This is an important, albeit incremental, step to incorporate linguistic expressions of defeasibility. Overall, the novel contribution of the paper is an integrated, end-to-end argumentation system which bridges between automated defeasible reasoning and a natural language interface. Specific novel contributions are the theory of ‘direct semantics’, motivations for our theory, results with respect to the direct semantics, an implementation, experimental results, the tie between the formalisation and the CNL, the introduction into a CNL of a natural language expression of defeasibility, and an ‘engineering’ approach to fine-grained argument analysis

From pole to pole : 33 years of physical oceanography onboard R/V Polarstern

Measuring temperature and salinity profiles in the world's oceans is crucial to understanding ocean dynamics and its influence on the heat budget, the water cycle, the marine environment and on our climate. Since 1983 the German research vessel and icebreaker Polarstern has been the platform of numerous CTD (conductivity, temperature, depth instrument) deployments in the Arctic and the Antarctic. We report on a unique data collection spanning 33 years of polar CTD data. In total 131 data sets (1 data set per cruise leg) containing data from 10 063 CTD casts are now freely available at doi: 10.1594/PANGAEA.860066. During this long period five CTD types with different characteristics and accuracies have been used. Therefore the instruments and processing procedures (sensor calibration, data validation, etc.) are described in detail. This compilation is special not only with regard to the quantity but also the quality of the data -the latter indicated for each data set using defined quality codes. The complete data collection includes a number of repeated sections for which the quality code can be used to investigate and evaluate long-term changes. Beginning with 2010, the salinity measurements presented here are of the highest quality possible in this field owing to the introduction of the OPTIMARE Precision Salinometer.Peer reviewe