Semi-Stable Semantics for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions. Different criteria that have been used to settle the acceptance of arguments are called semantics. However, the notion of semi-stable semantics as studied for abstract argumentation frameworks has received little attention for ADFs. In the current work, we present the concepts of semi-two-valued models and semi-stable models for ADFs. We show that these two notions satisfy a set of plausible properties required for semi-stable semantics of ADFs. Moreover, we show that semi-two-valued and semi-stable semantics of ADFs form a proper generalization of the semi-stable semantics of AFs, just like two-valued model and stable semantics for ADFs are generalizations of stable semantics for AFs.

Bipolar Abstract Argumentation with Dual Attacks and Supports

Bipolar abstract argumentation frameworks allow modeling decision problems by defining pro and contra arguments and their relationships. In some popular bipolar frameworks, there is an inherent tendency to favor either attack or support relationships. However, for some applications, it seems sensible to treat attack and support equally. Roughly speaking, turning an attack edge into a support edge, should just invert its meaning. We look at a recently introduced bipolar argumentation semantics and two novel alternatives and discuss their semantical and computational properties. Interestingly, the two novel semantics correspond to stable semantics if no support relations are present and maintain the computational complexity of stable semantics in general bipolar frameworks.

Argumentation Semantics under a Claim-centric View: Properties, Expressiveness and Relation to SETAFs

Claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) constitute a generic formalism for conflict resolution of conclusion-oriented problems in argumentation. CAFs extend Dung argumentation frameworks (AFs) by assigning a claim to each argument. So far, semantics for CAFs are defined with respect to the underlying AF by interpreting the extensions of the respective AF semantics in terms of the claims of the accepted arguments; we refer to them as inherited semantics of CAFs.<br>A central concept of many argumentation semantics is maximization, which can be done with respect to arguments as in preferred semantics, or with respect to the range as in semi-stable semantics. However, common instantiations of argumentation frameworks require maximality on the claim-level and inherited semantics often fail to provide maximal claim-sets even if the underlying AF semantics yields maximal argument sets. To address this issue, we investigate a different approach and introduce claim-level semantics (cl-semantics) for CAFs where maximization is performed on the claim-level. We compare these two approaches for five prominent semantics (preferred, naive, stable, semi-stable, and stage) and relate in total eleven CAF semantics to each other. Moreover, we show that for a certain subclass of CAFs, namely well-formed CAFs, the different versions of preferred and stable semantics coincide, which is not the case for the remaining semantics. We furthermore investigate a recently established translation between well-formed CAFs and SETAFs and show that, in contrast to the inherited naive, semi-stable and stage semantics, the cl-semantics correspond to the respective SETAF semantics. Finally, we investigate the expressiveness of the considered semantics in terms of their signatures.

On the Equivalence Between Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and Logic Programs

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) are argumentation frameworks where each node is associated with an acceptance condition. This allows us to model different types of dependencies as supports and attacks. Previous studies provided a translation from Normal Logic Programs (NLPs) to ADFs and proved the stable models semantics for a normal logic program has an equivalent semantics to that of the corresponding ADF. However, these studies failed in identifying a semantics for ADFs equivalent to a three-valued semantics (as partial stable models and well-founded models) for NLPs. In this work, we focus on a fragment of ADFs, called Attacking Dialectical Frameworks (ADF+s), and provide a translation from NLPs to ADF+s robust enough to guarantee the equivalence between partial stable models, well-founded models, regular models, stable models semantics for NLPs and respectively complete models, grounded models, preferred models, stable models for ADFs. In addition, we define a new semantics for ADF+s, called L-stable, and show it is equivalent to the L-stable semantics for NLPs.

On the Responsibility for Undecisiveness in Preferred and Stable Labellings in Abstract Argumentation (Extended Abstract)

Different semantics of abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide different levels of decisiveness for reasoning about the acceptability of conflicting arguments.The stable semantics is useful for applications requiring a high level of decisiveness, as it assigns to each argument the label "accepted" or the label "rejected". Unfortunately, stable labellings are not guaranteed to exist, thus raising the question as to which parts of AFs are responsible for the non-existence. In this paper, we address this question by investigating a more general question concerning preferred labellings (which may be less decisive than stable labellings but are always guaranteed to exist), namely why a given preferred labelling may not be stable and thus undecided on some arguments. In particular, (1) we give various characterisations of parts of an AF, based on the given preferred labelling, and (2) we show that these parts are indeed responsible for the undecisiveness if the preferred labelling is not stable. We then use these characterisations to explain the non-existence of stable labellings.

A Study of Argumentative Characterisations of Preferred Subtheories

Classical logic argumentation (Cl-Arg) under the stable semantics yields argumentative characterisations of non-monotonic inference in Preferred Subtheories. This paper studies these characterisations under both the standard approach to Cl-Arg, and a recent dialectical approach that is provably rational under resource bounds. Two key contributions are made. Firstly, the preferred extensions are shown to coincide with the stable extensions. This means that algorithms and proof theories for the admissible semantics can now be used to decide credulous inference in Preferred Subtheories. Secondly, we show that as compared with the standard approach, the grounded semantics applied to the dialectical approach more closely approximates sceptical inference in Preferred Subtheories.

Enhancing Context Knowledge Repositories with Justifiable Exceptions (Extended Abstract)

The Contextualized Knowledge Repository (CKR) framework was conceived as a logic-based approach for representing context dependent knowledge, which is a well-known area of study in AI. The framework has a two-layer structure with a global context that contains context-independent knowledge and meta-information about the contexts, and a set of local contexts with specific knowledge bases. In many practical cases, it is desirable that inherited global knowledge can be "overridden" at the local level. In order to address this need, we present an extension of CKR with global defeasible axioms: these axioms locally apply to (tuples of) individuals unless an exception for overriding exists; such an exception, however, requires a justification that is provable from the knowledge base. We formalize this intuition and study its semantic and computational properties. Furthermore, we present a translation of extended CKRs to datalog programs under the answer set (i.e., stable) semantics and we present an implementation prototype. Our work adds to the body of results on using deductive database technology in these areas, and provides an expressive formalism for exception handling by overriding.

Extending Well-Founded Semantics with Clark’s Completion for Disjunctive Logic Programs

In this paper, we introduce new semantics (that we call D3-WFS-DCOMP) and compare it with the stable semantics (STABLE). For normal programs, this semantics is based onsuitableintegration of the well-founded semantics (WFS) and the Clark’s completion. D3-WFS-DCOM has the following appealing properties: First, it agrees with STABLE in the sense that it never defines a nonminimal model or a nonminimal supported model. Second, for normal programs it extends WFS. Third, every stable model of a disjunctive programPis a D3-WFS-DCOM model ofP. Fourth, it is constructed using transformation rules accepted by STABLE. We also introduce second semantics that we call D2-WFS-DCOMP. We show that D2-WFS-DCOMP is equivalent to D3-WFS-DCOMP for normal programs but this is not the case for disjunctive programs. We also introduce third new semantics that supports the use of implicit disjunctions. We illustrate how these semantics can be extended to programs including explicit negation, default negation in the head of a clause, and aluboperator, which is a generalization of the aggregation operatorsetofover arbitrary complete lattices.