Showing papers by "Ofer Arieli published in 2023"
TL;DR: In this article , the authors provide a comprehensive postulate-based study of logic argumentation frameworks and a full characterization of their semantics and inference relations, and present a classification of argumentative models relative to the types of attacks they implement.
Abstract: Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modeling non-monotonic reasoning with conflicting information. In this paper we provide a comprehensive postulate-based study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks and a full characterization of their semantics and inference relations. In this way we identify well-behaved formal argumentative models of drawing logically justified inferences from a given set of possibly conflicting defeasible, as well as strict assumptions. Given some desiderata in terms of rationality postulates, we consider the conditions that an argumentation framework should fulfill for the desiderata to hold. One purpose of this approach is to assist designers to “plug-in” pre-defined formalisms according to actual needs. To this end, we present a classification of argumentation frameworks relative to the types of attacks they implement. In turn, for each class we determine which desiderata are satisfied. Our study is highly abstract, supposing only a minimal set of requirements on the considered underlying deductive systems, and in this way covering a broad range of formalisms, including classical, intuitionistic and modal logics.
TL;DR: The authors show that assumption-based argumentation frameworks, based on contrapositive logics and partially-ordered preference functions, provide a solid platform for argumentation-based representation and reasoning.
Abstract: We show that assumption-based argumentation frameworks, based on contrapositive logics and partially-ordered preference functions, provide a solid platform for argumentation- based representation and reasoning. Two useful properties of the preference functions are identified (selectivity and max- lower-boundedness), and extended forms of attacks relations are supported ( ∃ - and ∀ -attacks), which assure several desir- able properties and a variety of reasoning modes.
TL;DR: This article showed that assumption-based argumentation can represent not only normal logic programs, but also disjunctive logic programs and their extensions, and showed the correspondence between disjunctions in the heads of logic programs' rules.
Abstract: This paper continues an established line of research about the relations between argumentation theory, particularly assumption-based argumentation, and different kinds of logic programs. In particular, we extend known result of Caminada, Schultz and Toni by showing that assumption-based argumentation can represent not only normal logic programs, but also disjunctive logic programs and their extensions. For this, we consider some inference rules for disjunction that the core logic of the argumentation frameworks should respect, and show the correspondence to the handling of disjunctions in the heads of the logic programs' rules.