On the Semantics of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: A Logic Programming Approach
University of Calabria（卡拉布里亚大学）
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Francesco Parisi, Irina Trubitsyna
备注：
Paper presented at the 36th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2019), University Of Calabria, Rende (CS), Italy, September 2020, 16 pages
Recently there has been an increasing interest in frameworks extending Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Popular extensions include bipolar AFs and AFs with recursive attacks and necessary supports. Although the relationships between AF semantics and Partial Stable Models (PSMs) of logic programs has been deeply investigated, this is not the case for more general frameworks extending AF.
In this paper we explore the relationships between AF-based frameworks and PSMs. We show that every AF-based framework $Δ$ can be translated into a logic program $P_Δ$ so that the extensions prescribed by different semantics of $Δ$ coincide with subsets of the PSMs of $P_Δ$. We provide a logic programming approach that characterizes, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of several AF-based frameworks. This result allows also to define the semantics for new AF-based frameworks, such as AFs with recursive attacks and recursive deductive supports.
Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.
We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools. This enables the formal analysis and verification of meta-theoretical properties as well as the flexible generation of extensions and labellings with respect to well-known argumentation semantics.
Institute of Philosophy II, Ruhr Universität Bochum（波鸿鲁尔大学第二哲学研究所）；Ruhr Universität Bochum（波鸿鲁尔大学）
In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More specifically, we translate adaptive logics into assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC+, ASPIC+ into assumption-based argumentation and a fragment of assumption-based argumentation into adaptive logics. Adaptive logics are closely related to Makinson's default assumptions and to a significant class of systems within the tradition of preferential semantics…
This paper defines an argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and shows its equivalence to the well-founded semantics with explicit negation. We set up a general framework in which we extensively compare this semantics to other argumentation semantics, including those of Dung, and Prakken and Sartor. We present a general dialectical proof theory for these argumentation semantics.
Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoning that has gained popularity in the symbolic artificial intelligence community. In the literature, the different approaches to abstract argumentation that were refined over the years are typically evaluated from a formal logics perspective; an analysis that is based on models of economically rational decision-making does not exist. In this paper, we work towards addressing this issue by analyzing abstract argumentation from the perspective of the rational man paradigm in microeconomic theory. To assess under which conditi…
Computer Science Institute Leipzig University（莱比锡大学计算机科学研究所）
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.
University of Nebraska Omaha（内布拉斯加大学奥马哈分校）；IRIT（图卢兹计算机科学研究所）；Université de Toulouse（图卢兹大学）；CNRS（法国国家科学研究中心）
In this work, we show that both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks can be interpreted in terms of Nelson's constructive logic N4. We do so by formalizing, in this logic, two principles that we call non-contradictory inference and strengthened closed world assumption: the first states that no belief can be held based on contradictory evidence while the latter forces both unknown and contradictory evidence to be regarded as false. Using these principles, both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks are translated into constructive logic in a modular way and u…
University of Luxembourg（卢森堡大学）；King’s College London（伦敦国王学院）；University of Montpellier 2（蒙彼利埃第二大学）
We develop a model of abduction in abstract argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain the support of an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e., finding hypothe- ses that explain skeptical/credulous support) and we show that our model can be instantiated on the basis of abductive logic programs.
TU Dresden（德累斯顿工业大学）；TU Wien（维也纳工业大学）；University of Potsdam（波茨坦大学）
In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics. When asking for projected counts we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a given argumentation framework while multiple extensions that are identical when restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results when the problems are parameterized by treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extension…
Universidad de las Américas - Puebla（普埃布拉美洲大学）；Umeå University（于默奥大学）
Characterizations of semi-stable and stage extensions in terms of 2-valued logical models are presented. To this end, the so-called GL-supported and GL-stage models are defined. These two classes of logical models are logic programming counterparts of the notion of range which is an established concept in argumentation semantics.
In this paper, we propose a new method for computing general allocators directly from completeness conditions. A general allocator is an abstraction of all complete labelings for an argumentation framework. Any complete labeling is obtained from a general allocator by assigning logical constants to variables. We proved the existence of the general allocators in our previous work. However, the construction requires us to enumerate all complete labelings for the framework, which makes the computation prohibitively slow. The method proposed in this paper enables us to compute general allocators w…
Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships …
University of Koblenz（科布伦茨大学）；TU Dortmund（多特蒙德工业大学）
We introduce stratified labelings as a novel semantical approach to abstract argumentation frameworks. Compared to standard labelings, stratified labelings provide a more fine-grained assessment of the controversiality of arguments using ranks instead of the usual labels in, out, and undecided. We relate the framework of stratified labelings to conditional logic and, in particular, to the System Z ranking functions.
After Dung's founding work in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks there has been a growing interest in extending the Dung's semantics in order to describe more complex or real life situations. Several of these approaches take the direction of weighted or probabilistic extensions. One of the most prominent probabilistic approaches is that of constellation Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation Frameworks from Li~et~al. In this paper, we present a normal form for constellation probabilistic abstract argumentation frameworks. Furthermore, we present a transformation from general constellation probabi…
This volume contains the papers presented at Arg-LPNMR 2016: First International Workshop on Argumentation in Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning held on July 8-10, 2016 in New York City, NY.
Realizability for knowledge representation formalisms studies the following question: given a semantics and a set of interpretations, is there a knowledge base whose semantics coincides exactly with the given interpretation set? We introduce a general framework for analyzing realizability in abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) and various of its subclasses. In particular, the framework applies to Dung argumentation frameworks, SETAFs by Nielsen and Parsons, and bipolar ADFs. We present a uniform characterization method for the admissible, complete, preferred and model/stable semantics. We e…
We propose and investigate a simple ranking-measure-based extension semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks based on their generic instantiation by default knowledge bases and the ranking construction semantics for default reasoning. In this context, we consider the path from structured to logical to shallow semantic instantiations. The resulting well-justified JZ-extension semantics diverges from more traditional approaches.
La Sapienza, University of Rome（罗马大学）；Vienna University of Technology（维也纳工业大学）
The design of efficient solutions for abstract argumentation problems is a crucial step towards advanced argumentation systems. One of the most prominent approaches in the literature is to use Answer-Set Programming (ASP) for this endeavor. In this paper, we present new encodings for three prominent argumentation semantics using the concept of conditional literals in disjunctions as provided by the ASP-system clingo. Our new encodings are not only more succinct than previous versions, but also outperform them on standard benchmarks.
We revisit the notion of initial sets by Xu and Cayrol, i.e., non-empty minimal admissible sets in abstract argumentation frameworks. Initial sets are a simple concept for analysing conflicts in an abstract argumentation framework and to explain why certain arguments can be accepted. We contribute with new insights on the structure of initial sets and devise a simple non-deterministic construction principle for any admissible set, based on iterative selection of initial sets of the original framework and its induced reducts. In particular, we characterise many existing admissibility-based sema…
Institute for Web Science and Technologies（网络科学与技术研究所）；University of Koblenz-Landau（科布伦茨-兰道大学）
We propose a novel ranking-based semantics for Dung-style argumentation frameworks with the help of conditional logics. Using an intuitive translation for an argumentation framework to generate conditionals, we can apply nonmonotonic inference systems to generate a ranking on possible worlds. With this ranking we construct a ranking for our arguments. With a small extension to this ranking-based semantics we already satisfy some desirable properties for a ranking over arguments.
The notion of stability in a structured argumentation setup characterizes situations where the acceptance status associated with a given literal will not be impacted by any future evolution of this setup. In this paper, we abstract away from the logical structure of arguments, and we transpose this notion of stability to the context of Dungean argumentation frameworks. In particular, we show how this problem can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete AFs. Then we provide preliminary complexity results for stability under four prominent semantics, in the case of both credulous an…
In this paper, we present a preliminary work on an approach to fill the gap between logic-based argumentation and the numerous approaches to tackle the dynamics of abstract argumentation frameworks. Our idea is that, even when arguments and attacks are defined by means of a logical belief base, there may be some uncertainty about how accurate is the content of an argument, and so the presence (or absence) of attacks concerning it. We use enthymemes to illustrate this notion of uncertainty of arguments and attacks. Indeed, as argued in the literature, real arguments are often enthymemes instead…
University of Aberdeen（阿伯丁大学）；University of Huddersfield（哈德斯菲尔德大学）；University of Brescia（布雷西亚大学）
Abstract argumentation framework (\AFname) is a unifying framework able to encompass a variety of nonmonotonic reasoning approaches, logic programming and computational argumentation. Yet, efficient approaches for most of the decision and enumeration problems associated to \AFname s are missing, thus potentially limiting the efficacy of argumentation-based approaches in real domains. In this paper, we present an algorithm for enumerating the preferred extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks which exploits parallel computation. To this purpose, the SCC-recursive semantics definition sch…
University of Lleida（莱里达大学）；Universidad Nacional del Sur（南方国立大学）；IIIA – CSIC（西班牙国家研究委员会人工智能研究所）
Defeasible argumentation frameworks have evolved to become a sound setting to formalize commonsense, qualitative reasoning from incomplete and potentially inconsistent knowledge. Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) is a defeasible argumentation formalism based on an extension of logic programming. Although DeLP has been successfully integrated in a number of different real-world applications, DeLP cannot deal with explicit uncertainty, nor with vague knowledge, as defeasibility is directly encoded in the object language. This paper introduces P-DeLP, a new logic programming language that exten…
Sun Yat-sen University（中山大学）；University of Amsterdam（阿姆斯特丹大学）
An abstract argumentation framework can be used to model the argumentative stance of an agent at a high level of abstraction, by indicating for every pair of arguments that is being considered in a debate whether the first attacks the second. When modelling a group of agents engaged in a debate, we may wish to aggregate their individual argumentation frameworks to obtain a single such framework that reflects the consensus of the group. Even when agents disagree on many details, there may well be high-level agreement on important semantic properties, such as the acceptability of a given argumen…
In this paper, we study the effect of preferences in abstract argumentation under a claim-centric perspective. Recent work has revealed that semantical and computational properties can change when reasoning is performed on claim-level rather than on the argument-level, while under certain natural restrictions (arguments with the same claims have the same outgoing attacks) these properties are conserved. We now investigate these effects when, in addition, preferences have to be taken into account and consider four prominent reductions to handle preferences between arguments. As we shall see, th…
The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through, effectively, CTL (computation tree logic) encoding, which also permits importation of the theoretical results known to the logic into our argumentation frameworks. Our aim is to complement the growing interest in coor…
In the last years, abstract argumentation has met with great success in AI, since it has served to capture several non-monotonic logics for AI. Relations between argumentation framework (AF) semantics and logic programming ones are investigating more and more. In particular, great attention has been given to the well-known stable extensions of an AF, that are closely related to the answer sets of a logic program. However, if a framework admits a small incoherent part, no stable extension can be provided. To overcome this shortcoming, two semantics generalizing stable extensions have been studi…
Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR)（巴拉那联邦理工大学）；Umeå University（于默奥大学）
Some abstract argumentation approaches consider that arguments have a degree of uncertainty, which impacts on the degree of uncertainty of the extensions obtained from a abstract argumentation framework (AAF) under a semantics. In these approaches, both the uncertainty of the arguments and of the extensions are modeled by means of precise probability values. However, in many real life situations the exact probabilities values are unknown and sometimes there is a need for aggregating the probability values of different sources. In this paper, we tackle the problem of calculating the degree of u…
In this paper, we address the problem of change in an abstract argumentation system. We focus on a particular change: the addition of a new argument which interacts with previous arguments. We study the impact of such an addition on the outcome of the argumentation system, more particularly on the set of its extensions. Several properties for this change operation are defined by comparing the new set of extensions to the initial one, these properties are called structural when the comparisons are based on set-cardinality or set-inclusion relations. Several other properties are proposed where c…
University of Helsinki（赫尔辛基大学）；Graz University of Technology（格拉茨工业大学）
Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a central structured argumentation formalism. As shown recently, answer set programming (ASP) enables efficiently solving NP-hard reasoning tasks of ABA in practice, in particular in the commonly studied logic programming fragment of ABA. In this work, we harness recent advances in incremental ASP solving for developing effective algorithms for reasoning tasks in the logic programming fragment of ABA that are presumably hard for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy, including skeptical reasoning under preferred semantics as well as preferential r…
Institute of Information Systems（信息系统研究所）；Vienna University of Technology（维也纳工业大学）
Dung's famous abstract argumentation frameworks represent the core formalism for many problems and applications in the field of argumentation which significantly evolved within the last decade. Recent work in the field has thus focused on implementations for these frameworks, whereby one of the main approaches is to use Answer-Set Programming (ASP). While some of the argumentation semantics can be nicely expressed within the ASP language, others required rather cumbersome encoding techniques. Recent advances in ASP systems, in particular, the metasp optimization frontend for the ASP-package gr…
An \textit{abstract argumentation framework} ({\sc af} for short) is a directed graph $(A,R)$ where $A$ is a set of \textit{abstract arguments} and $R\subseteq A \times A$ is the \textit{attack} relation. Let $H=(A,R)$ be an {\sc af}, $S \subseteq A$ be a set of arguments and $S^+ = \{y \mid \exists x\in S \text{ with }(x,y)\in R\}$. Then, $S$ is a \textit{stable extension} in $H$ if and only if $S^+ = A\setminus S$. In this paper, we present a thorough, formal validation of a known backtracking algorithm for listing all stable extensions in a given {\sc af}.
Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are a powerful generalisation of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks. In this paper we present an answer set programming based software system, called DIAMOND (DIAlectical MOdels eNcoDing). It translates ADFs into answer set programs whose stable models correspond to models of the ADF with respect to several semantics (i.e. admissible, complete, stable, grounded).
ConArg is a Constraint Programming-based tool that can be used to model and solve different problems related to Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). To implement this tool we have used JaCoP, a Java library that provides the user with a Finite Domain Constraint Programming paradigm. ConArg is able to randomly generate networks with small-world properties in order to find conflict-free, admissible, complete, stable grounded, preferred, semi-stable, stage and ideal extensions on such interaction graphs. We present the main features of ConArg and we report the performance in time, showing als…
University of Groningen（格罗宁根大学）；King's College London（伦敦国王学院）
The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework, and which can be successfully interfaced with approaches to instantiated argumentation. The theory is developed in three steps. First, the paper introduces a graded generalization of the two key notions underpinning Dung's semantics: self-defense and conflict-freeness. This leads to a natural generalization of Dung's semantics, whereby standard extensions are weakened or strengthened depending on the level of self-defense and conflict-freeness they…
Department of Computer and Information Science (IDA), Linköping University, Sweden（链接öping大学计算机与信息科学系（IDA））；University of Potsdam, Germany & University of Artois, CNRS, UMR8188 (CRIL), France（波茨坦大学 & 阿尔托伊斯大学、法国CNRS UMR8188（CRIL））；Data Science Group, Heinz Nixdorf Institute, Paderborn University, Germany（帕德博恩大学数据科学小组、海因茨·尼克斯多夫研究所）
The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions. In DeLP an argumentation formalism will be used for deciding between contradictory goals. Queries will be supported by arguments that could be defeated by other arguments. A query q will succeed when there is an argument A for q that is warran…
Argumentative Characterizations of (Extended) Disjunctive Logic Programs
Department of Computer Science, Open Universiteit, the Netherlands（开放大学计算机科学系）；Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Town, South-Africa（开普敦大学计算机科学系）；School of Computer Science, Tel-Aviv Academic College, Israel（特拉维夫学术学院计算机科学学院）
We present a new and compelling approach to the efficient solution of important computational problems that arise in the context of abstract argumentation. Our approach makes known algorithms defined for restricted fragments generally applicable, at a computational cost that scales with the distance from the fragment. Thus, in a certain sense, we gradually augment tractable fragments. Surprisingly, it turns out that some tractable fragments admit such an augmentation and that others do not. More specifically, we show that the problems of credulous and skeptical acceptance are fixed-parameter t…
An extension of an abstract argumentation framework, called collective argumentation, is introduced in which the attack relation is defined directly among sets of arguments. The extension turns out to be suitable, in particular, for representing semantics of disjunctive logic programs. Two special kinds of collective argumentation are considered in which the opponents can share their arguments.
Cycles of attacking arguments pose non-trivial issues in Dung style argumentation theory, apparent behavioural difference between odd and even length cycles being a notable one. While a few methods were proposed for treating them, to - in particular - enable selection of acceptable arguments in an odd-length cycle when Dung semantics could select none, so far the issues have been observed from a purely argument-graph-theoretic perspective. Per contra, we consider argument graphs together with a certain lattice like semantic structure over arguments e.g. ontology. As we show, the semantic-argum…
Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and non-extensions. In order to reason with a specific semantics, one needs to take a credulous or skeptical approach, i.e. an argument is eventually accepted, if it is accepted in one or all extensions, respectively. In our previous work \cite{ref-pu2015counting}, we have proposed a novel semantics, called \emph{counting semantics}, which allows for a more fine-grained asses…
In the present paper, the existence and multiplicity problems of extensions are addressed. The focus is on extension of the stable type. The main result of the paper is an elegant characterization of the existence and multiplicity of extensions in terms of the notion of dialectical justification, a close cousin of the notion of admissibility. The characterization is given in the context of the particular logic for dialectical argumentation DEFLOG. The results are of direct relevance for several well-established models of defeasible reasoning (like default logic, logic programming and argumenta…
LAMSADE, CNRS, Paris, France（法国国家科学研究中心LAMSADE实验室）；Department of Theoretical Computer Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic（马萨里克大学理论计算机科学系）；Institute of Information Systems, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria（维也纳工业大学信息系统研究所）
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 tha…
