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.
@cite_11 use term rewriting logic to compute changes to an abstract AF with the goal of changing the status of an argument. Two similarities to our work are: (1) our production rules to generate dialogues can be seen as a kind of term rewriting rules. (2) their approach amounts to rewriting goals into statements to the effect that certain attacks in the AF are enabled or disabled. These statements resemble the moves @math and @math in our system. However, they treat attacks as entities that can be enabled or disabled independently. As discussed, different arguments (or in this case attacks associated with arguments) cannot be regarded as independent entities, if the abstract model is instantiated.
@cite_11
1601458080 2175917793 2130003285 74587951
Rewriting logic extends to concurrent systems with state changes the body of theory developed within the algebraic semantics approach. It is both a foundational tool and the kernel language of several implementation efforts (Cafe, ELAN, Maude). Tile logic extends (unconditional) rewriting logic since it takes into account state changes with side effects and synchronization. It is especially useful for defining compositional models of computation of reactive systems, coordination languages, mobile calculi, and causal and located concurrent systems. In this paper, the two logics are defined and compared using a recently developed algebraic specification methodology, membership equational logic. Given a theory T, the rewriting logic of T is the free monoidal 2-category, and the tile logic of T is the free monoidal double category, both generated by T. An extended version of monoidal 2-categories, called 2VH-categories, is also defined, able to include in an appropriate sense the structure of monoidal double categories. We show that 2VH-categories correspond to an extended version of rewriting logic, which is able to embed tile logic, and which can be implemented in the basic version of rewriting logic using suitable internal strategies. These strategies can be significantly simpler when the theory is uniform. A uniform theory is provided in the paper for CCS, and it is conjectured that uniform theories exist for most process algebras. Many real-world knowledge-based systems must deal with information coming from different sources that invariably leads to incompleteness, overspecification, or inherently uncertain content. The presence of these varying levels of uncertainty doesn't mean that the information is worthless --- rather, these are hurdles that the knowledge engineer must learn to work with. In this paper, we continue work on an argumentation-based framework that extends the well-known Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) language with probabilistic uncertainty, giving rise to the Defeasible Logic Programming with Presumptions and Probabilistic Environments (DeLP3E) model. Our prior work focused on the problem of belief revision in DeLP3E, where we proposed a non-prioritized class of revision operators called AFO (Annotation Function-based Operators) to solve this problem. In this paper, we further study this class and argue that in some cases it may be desirable to define revision operators that take quantitative aspects into account, such as how the probabilities of certain literals or formulas of interest change after the revision takes place. To the best of our knowledge, this problem has not been addressed in the argumentation literature to date. We propose the QAFO (Quantitative Annotation Function-based Operators) class of operators, a subclass of AFO, and then go on to study the complexity of several problems related to their specification and application in revising knowledge bases. Finally, we present an algorithm for computing the probability that a literal is warranted in a DeLP3E knowledge base, and discuss how it could be applied towards implementing QAFO-style operators that compute approximations rather than exact operations. Given an argumentation framework AF, we introduce a mapping function that constructs a disjunctive logic program P, such that the preferred extensions of AF correspond to the stable models of P, after intersecting each stable model with the relevant atoms. The given mapping function is of polynomial size w.r.t. AF. In particular, we identify that there is a direct relationship between the minimal models of a propositional formula and the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by working on representing the defeated arguments. Then we show how to infer the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by using UNSAT algorithms and disjunctive stable model solvers. The relevance of this result is that we define a direct relationship between one of the most satisfactory argumentation semantics and one of the most successful approach of nonmonotonic reasoning i.e., logic programming with the stable model semantics. When several agents are engaged in an argumentation process, they are faced with the problem of deciding how to contribute to the current state of the debate in order to satisfy their own goal, ie. to make an argument under a given semantics accepted or not. In this paper, we study the minimal changes or target sets on the current state of the debate that are required to achieve such a goal, where changes are the addition and or deletion of attacks among arguments. We study some properties of these target sets, and propose a Maude specification of rewriting rules which allow to compute all the target sets for some types of goals.