Abstract Dialectical Frameworks Research Articles

An encoding of abstract dialectical frameworks into higher-order logic

Abstract An approach for encoding abstract dialectical frameworks and their semantics into classical higher-order logic is presented. Important properties and semantic relationships are formally encoded and proven using the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL. This approach allows for the computer-assisted analysis of abstract dialectical frameworks using automated and interactive reasoning tools within a uniform logic environment. Exemplary applications include the formal analysis and verification of meta-theoretical properties, and the generation of interpretations and extensions under specific semantic constraints.

Revision, defeasible conditionals and non-monotonic inference for abstract dialectical frameworks

For propositional beliefs, there are well-established connections between belief revision, defeasible conditionals, and nonmonotonic inference. In argumentative contexts, such connections have not yet been investigated. On the one hand, the exact relationship between formal argumentation and nonmonotonic inference relations is a research topic that keeps on eluding researchers despite recently intensified efforts, whereas argumentative revision has been studied in numerous works during recent years. In this paper, we show that relationships between belief revision, defeasible conditionals, and nonmonotonic inference similar to those in propositional logic hold in argumentative contexts as well. We first define revision operators for abstract dialectical frameworks, and use such revision operators to define dynamic conditionals by means of the Ramsey test. We show that such conditionals can be equivalently defined using a total preorder over three-valued interpretations, and study the inferential behaviour of the resulting conditional inference relations.

Advanced algorithms for abstract dialectical frameworks based on complexity analysis of subclasses and SAT solving

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) constitute one of the most powerful formalisms in abstract argumentation. Their high computational complexity poses, however, certain challenges when designing efficient systems. In this paper, we tackle this issue by (i) analyzing the complexity of ADFs under structural restrictions, (ii) presenting novel algorithms which make use of these insights, and (iii) implementing these algorithms via (multiple) calls to SAT solvers. An empirical evaluation of the resulting implementation on ADF benchmarks generated from ICCMA competitions shows that our solver is able to outperform state-of-the-art ADF systems.

On the correspondence between abstract dialectical frameworks and nonmonotonic conditional logics

The exact relationship between formal argumentation and nonmonotonic logics is a research topic that keeps on eluding researchers despite recent intensified efforts. We contribute to a deeper understanding of this relation by investigating characterizations of abstract dialectical frameworks in conditional logics for nonmonotonic reasoning. We first show that in general, there is a gap between argumentation and conditional semantics when applying several intuitive translations, but then prove that this gap can be closed when focusing on specific classes of translations.

On the Decomposition of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and the Complexity of Naive-based Semantics

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are a recently introduced powerful generalization of Dung’s popular abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). Inspired by similar work for AFs, we introduce a decomposition scheme for ADFs, which proceeds along the ADF’s strongly connected components. We find that, for several semantics, the decompositionbased version coincides with the original semantics, whereas for others, it gives rise to a new semantics. These new semantics allow us to deal with pertinent problems such as odd-length negative cycles in a more general setting, that for instance also encompasses logic programs. We perform an exhaustive analysis of the computational complexity of these new, so-called naive-based semantics. The results are quite interesting, for some of them involve little-known classes of the so-called Boolean hierarchy (another hierarchy in between classes of the polynomial hierarchy). Furthermore, in credulous and sceptical entailment, the complexity can be different depending on whether we check for truth or falsity of a specific statement.

A discussion game for the grounded semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as formalism for the modeling and evaluating argumentation. However, the role of discussion in evaluating of arguments in ADFs has not been clarified well so far. We focus on the grounded semantics of ADFs and provide the grounded discussion game. We show that an argument is acceptable (deniable) in the grounded interpretation of an ADF without any redundant links if and only if the proponent of a claim has a winning strategy in the grounded discussion game.

Realizability of three-valued semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks

We investigate fundamental properties of three-valued semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). In particular, we deal with realizability, i.e., the question whether there exists an ADF that has a given set of interpretations as its semantics. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions that hold for a set of three-valued interpretations whenever there is an ADF realizing it under admissible, complete, grounded, or preferred semantics. Moreover, we show how to construct such an ADF in case of realizability. Our results lay the ground for studying the expressiveness of ADFs under three-valued semantics. Since ADFs generalize many existing approaches, our results have immediate impact on many argumentation formalisms including abstract argumentation frameworks. As first applications, we study implications of our results on the existence of certain join operators on ADFs. Furthermore, we exploit our (exact) characterizations to obtain realizability results also for a more relaxed setting, where realizing ADFs may contain hidden statements.

On Three-Valued Acceptance Conditions of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (adfs) are generalizations of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (afs) where each argument has an associated acceptance condition expressed by a boolean formula. The resulting extension is robust enough not only to model the attack relation original to afs, but also others types of dependencies and interactions between arguments. A recent development in adfs proposed an alternative formalization involving three-valued acceptance conditions, connecting the original definitions of adfs to the concept of three-valued argument labellings, a core concept in computational argumentation literature. In this paper, we revise some of the main semantics defined under this three-valued approach and prove our definitions hold equivalence to well-known semantics of afs.

Weighted Abstract Dialectical Frameworks through the Lens of Approximation Fixpoint Theory

Weighted abstract dialectical frameworks (wADFs) were recently introduced, extending abstract dialectical frameworks to incorporate degrees of acceptance. In this paper, we propose a different view on wADFs: we develop semantics for wADFs based on approximation fixpoint theory, an abstract algebraic theory designed to capture semantics of various non-monotonic reasoning formalisms. Our formalism deviates from the original definition on some basic assumptions, the most fundamental is that we assume an ordering on acceptance degrees. We discuss the impact of the differences, the relationship between the two versions of the formalism, and the advantages each of the approaches offers. We furthermore study complexity of various semantics.

Representing the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks based on arguments and attacks

Representing the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks based on arguments and attacks

Weighted Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) generalize Dung's argumentation frameworks allowing various relationships among arguments to be expressed in a systematic way. We further generalize ADFs so as to accommodate arbitrary acceptance degrees for the arguments. This makes ADFs applicable in domains where both the initial status of arguments and their relationship are only insufficiently specified by Boolean functions. We define all standard ADF semantics for the weighted case, including grounded, preferred and stable semantics. We illustrate our approach using acceptance degrees from the unit interval and show how other valuation structures can be integrated. In each case it is sufficient to specify how the generalized acceptance conditions are represented by formulas, and to specify the information ordering underlying the characteristic ADF operator. We also present complexity results for problems related to weighted ADFs.

Solving Advanced Argumentation Problems with Answer-Set Programming

Powerful formalisms for abstract argumentation have been proposed. Their complexity is often located beyond NP and ranges up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. The combined complexity of Answer-Set Programming (ASP) exactly matches this complexity when programs are restricted to predicates of bounded arity. In this paper, we exploit this coincidence and present novel efficient translations from abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) and GRAPPA to ASP.We also empirically compare our approach to other systems for ADF reasoning and report promising results.

A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

This paper presents a methodology to design and implement programs intended to decide cases, described as sets of factors, according to a theory of a particular domain based on a set of precedent cases relating to that domain. We use Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs), a recent development in AI knowledge representation, as the central feature of our design method. ADFs will play a role akin to that played by Entity---Relationship models in the design of database systems. First, we explain how the factor hierarchy of the well-known legal reasoning system CATO can be used to instantiate an ADF for the domain of US Trade Secrets. This is intended to demonstrate the suitability of ADFs for expressing the design of legal cased based systems. The method is then applied to two other legal domains often used in the literature of AI and Law. In each domain, the design is provided by the domain analyst expressing the cases in terms of factors organised into an ADF from which an executable program can be implemented in a straightforward way by taking advantage of the closeness of the acceptance conditions of the ADF to components of an executable program. We evaluate the ease of implementation, the performance and efficacy of the resulting program, ease of refinement of the program and the transparency of the reasoning. This evaluation suggests ways in which factor based systems, which are limited by taking as their starting point the representation of cases as sets of factors and so abstracting away the particular facts, can be extended to address open issues in AI and Law by incorporating the case facts to improve the decision, and by considering justification and reasoning using portion of precedents.

Expressiveness of Two-Valued Semantics for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

We analyse the expressiveness of Brewka and Woltran's abstract dialectical frameworks for two-valued semantics. By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of two-valued interpretations over a given propositional vocabulary A using only atoms from A. We also compare ADFs' expressiveness with that of (the two-valued semantics of) abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and propositional logic. 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. We then demonstrate that this hierarchy collapses once we allow to introduce a linear number of new vocabulary elements. We finally also analyse and compare the representational succinctness of ADFs (for two-valued model semantics), that is, their capability to represent two-valued interpretation sets in a space-efficient manner.

Analyzing the computational complexity of abstract dialectical frameworks via approximation fixpoint theory

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have recently been proposed as a versatile generalization of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of the computational complexity of ADFs. Our results show that while ADFs are one level up in the polynomial hierarchy compared to AFs, there is a useful subclass of ADFs which is as complex as AFs while arguably offering more modeling capacities. As a technical vehicle, we employ the approximation fixpoint theory of Denecker, Marek and Truszczyński, thus showing that it is also a useful tool for complexity analysis of operator-based semantics.

The Relative Expressiveness of Abstract Argumentation and Logic Programming

We analyze the relative 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 vocabulary A using only atoms from A. 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. We then demonstrate that this hierarchy collapses once we allow to introduce a linear number of new vocabulary elements.

Instantiating rule-based defeasible theories in abstract dialectical frameworks and beyond

Instantiating rule-based defeasible theories in abstract dialectical frameworks and beyond

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 Dungʼs 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.