Dung's semantics satisfy attack removal monotonicity

Leila Amgoud,Srdjan Vesic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2007.04221

2020-07-08

Abstract:We show that preferred, stable, complete, and grounded semantics satisfy attack removal monotonicity. This means that if an attack from b to a is removed, the status of a cannot worsen, e.g. if a was skeptically accepted, it cannot become rejected.

Artificial Intelligence

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Weakly Complete Semantics Based on Undecidedness Blocking

Pierpaolo Dondio,Luca Longo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.10701

2021-03-19

Abstract:In this paper we introduce a novel family of semantics called weakly complete semantics. Differently from Dung's complete semantics, weakly complete semantics employs a mechanism called undecidedness blocking by which the label undecided of an attacking argument is not always propagated to an otherwise accepted attacked argument. The new semantics are conflict-free, non-admissible but employing a weaker notion of admissibility; they allow reinstatement and they retain the majority of properties of complete semantics. We show how both weakly complete and Dung's complete semantics can be generated by applying different undecidedness blocking strategies, making undecidedness blocking a unifying mechanism underlying argumentation semantics. The semantics are also an example of ambiguity blocking Dunganian semantics and the first semantics to tackle the problem of self-defeating attacking arguments. In the last part of the paper we compare weakly complete semantics with the recent work of Baumann et al. on weakly admissible semantics. Since the two families of semantics do not coincide, a principle-based analysis of the two approaches is provided. The analysis shows how our semantics satisfy a number of principles satisfied by Dung's complete semantics but not by Baumann et al. semantics, including directionality, abstention, SCC-decomposability and cardinality of extensions, making them a more faithful non-admissible version of Dung' semantics.

Logic in Computer Science
Enhancing Dung’s Preferred Semantics

Zhihu Zhang,Zuoquan Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11829-6_7

2010-01-01

Abstract:Conflict resolution is an important issue. Dung’s preferred semantics is a promising approach to resolving conflicts. However, such semantics is not capable of dealing with conflicts satisfactorily in the argumentation frameworks wherein there exists only empty admissible set. To enhance Dung’s preferred semantics, we propose a novel semantics which follows the philosophy of Dung’s preferred semantics, while satisfactorily resolving conflicts among arguments. In order to define our semantics, we first redefine Dung’s basic notion acceptability by using pairs of sets of arguments and then propose the admissible semantics based on such notion. Relationships with Dung’s preferred semantics, ideal semantics and semi-stable semantics are analyzed, and comparisons with other approaches such as CF2 semantics are also discussed.
Some Supplementaries to the Counting Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

Fuan Pu,Jian Luo,Guiming Luo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ictai.2015.46

2015-01-01

Abstract: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 [1], we have proposed a novel semantics, called counting semantics, which allows for a more fine-grained assessment to arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders based on argument graph and argument game. In this paper, we continue our previous work by presenting some supplementaries about how to choose the damaging factor for the counting semantics, and what relationships with some existing approaches, such as Dung's classical semantics, generic gradual valuations. Lastly, an axiomatic perspective on the ranking semantics induced by our counting semantics are presented.
New Logical Perspectives on Monotonicity.

Johan van Benthem,Fenrong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62843-0_1

2020-01-01

Abstract:Monotonicity-based inference is a fundamental notion in the logical semantics of natural language, and also in logic in general. Starting in generalized quantifier theory, we distinguish three senses of the notion, study their relations, and use these to connect monotonicity to logics of model change. At the end we return to natural language and consider monotonicity inference in linguistic settings with vocabulary for various forms of change. While we mostly raise issues in this paper, we do make a number of new observations backing up our distinctions.
On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method.

Pietro Baroni,Massimiliano Giacomin,Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.03.003

IF: 14.4

2014-01-01

Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:This research note provides novel results concerning the incremental computation of the stable and ideal argumentation semantics, by extending the division-based method presented in [1] and correcting a flawed claim given there. As a basis for these results, the note synthetically reviews and discusses the topology-related properties of directionality and SCC-recursiveness in abstract argumentation semantics and analyzes their relationships with the division-based method.
A Principle-Based Robustness Analysis of Admissibility-Based Argumentation Semantics

Tjitze Rienstra,Chiaki Sakama,Leendert van der Torre,Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-200520

2020-01-01

Argument & Computation

Abstract:The principle-based approach is a methodology to classify and analyse argumentation semantics. In this paper we classify seven of the main alternatives for argumentation semantics using a set of new robustness principles. These principles complement Baroni and Giacomin’s original classification and deal with the behaviour of a semantics when the argumentation framework changes due to the addition or removal of an attack between two arguments. We distinguish so-called persistence principles and monotonicity principles, where the former deal with the question of whether a labelling or extension of an argumentation framework under a given semantics persists after a change, and the latter with the question of whether new labellings or extensions are created after a change. We furthermore show in which sense labelling-based and extension-based semantics lead to subtly different principles and results. Our results can be used for choosing a semantics for a particular application, or to guide the search for new argumentation semantics, but they have been used also in the design of algorithms.
Partial Semantics of Argumentation

Beishui Liao,Huaxin Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24130-7_11

2011-01-01

Abstract:In various argumentation systems, under most of situations, only the justification status of some arguments of the systems should be evaluated, while that of other arguments is not necessary to be figured out. Based on this observation, we introduce an efficient method to evaluate the status of a part of arguments in an argumentation framework. This method is based on the notion of unattacked sets of an argumentation framework and the directionality criterion of argumentation semantics. Given an argumentation framework and a subset of arguments within it, we firstly identify the minimal set of arguments that are relevant to the arguments in this subset (called the minimal unattacked set). Then, under an argumentation semantics satisfying the directionality criterion, the set of extensions of the sub-framework induced by the minimal unattacked set (called a partial semantics of the original argumentation framework) can be evaluated independently. Then, we analyze two basic properties of the partial semantics of argumentation: monotonicity and combinability.
Partial Semantics of Argumentation: Basic Properties and Empirical

Beishui Liao,Huaqiong Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exs047

2012-01-01

Journal of Logic and Computation

Abstract:In various argumentation systems, under most of situations, only the status of some arguments of the systems should be evaluated, while that of others is not necessary to be figured out. Based on this observation, we first introduce an efficient method to evaluate the status of a part of arguments in an abstract argumentation framework (AF). Given an AF and a subset of arguments within it, the minimal set of arguments that are relevant to this subset (called the set of relevant arguments of the subset) is identified. Under a semantics satisfying the directionality criterion, the set of extensions of the sub-framework induced by the set of relevant arguments of the given subset (called a partial semantics of the AF with respect to this subset) can be evaluated locally. Then, we introduce three basic properties of the partial semantics of argumentation: monotonicity, extensibility and combinability, which lay a foundation for developing efficient algorithms for the status evaluation of a part of arguments in an AF. Finally, we conduct an empirical investigation on the properties of computing the partial semantics of argumentation using answer-set programming. The average results show that the computational benefits of this method is closely related to the edge density of the defeat graph of a given AF.
Stateful Structural Operational Semantics

Sergey Goncharov,Stefan Milius,Lutz Schröder,Stelios Tsampas,Henning Urbat

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.10866

2022-02-22

Logic in Computer Science

Abstract:Compositionality of denotational semantics is an important concern in programming semantics. Mathematical operational semantics in the sense of Turi and Plotkin guarantees compositionality, but seen from the point of view of stateful computation it applies only to very fine-grained equivalences that essentially assume unrestricted interference by the environment between any two statements. We introduce the more restrictive stateful SOS rule format for stateful languages. We show that compositionality of two more coarse-grained semantics, respectively given by assuming read-only interference or no interference between steps, remains an undecidable property even for stateful SOS. However, further restricting the rule format in a manner inspired by the cool GSOS formats of Bloom and van Glabbeek, we obtain the streamlined and cool stateful SOS formats, which respectively guarantee compositionality of the two more abstract equivalences.
An Update Semantics for Defeasible Obligations

Leendert van der Torre,Yao-Hua Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.6743

2013-01-24

Abstract:The deontic logic DUS is a Deontic Update Semantics for prescriptive obligations based on the update semantics of Veltman. In DUS the definition of logical validity of obligations is not based on static truth values but on dynamic action transitions. In this paper prescriptive defeasible obligations are formalized in update semantics and the diagnostic problem of defeasible deontic logic is discussed. Assume a defeasible obligation `normally A ought to be (done)' together withthe fact `A is not (done).' Is this an exception of the normality claim, or is it a violation of the obligation? In this paper we formalize the heuristic principle that it is a violation, unless there is a more specific overriding obligation. The underlying motivation from legal reasoning is that criminals should have as little opportunities as possible to excuse themselves by claiming that their behavior was exceptional rather than criminal.

Artificial Intelligence,Logic in Computer Science
Defense semantics of argumentation: revisit

Beishui Liao,Leendert van der Torre

2023-11-22

Abstract:In this paper we introduce a novel semantics, called defense semantics, for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks in terms of a notion of (partial) defence, which is a triple encoding that one argument is (partially) defended by another argument via attacking the attacker of the first argument. In terms of defense semantics, we show that defenses related to self-attacked arguments and arguments in 3-cycles are unsatifiable under any situation and therefore can be removed without affecting the defense semantics of an AF. Then, we introduce a new notion of defense equivalence of AFs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Finally, by exploiting defense semantics, we define two kinds of reasons for accepting arguments, i.e., direct reasons and root reasons, and a notion of root equivalence of AFs that can be used in argumentation summarization.

Artificial Intelligence
Adversarial Formal Semantics of Attack Trees and Related Problems

Thomas Brihaye,Sophie Pinchinat,Alexandre Terefenko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.370.11

2022-09-21

Abstract:Security is a subject of increasing attention in our actual society in order to protect critical resources from information disclosure, theft or damage. The informal model of attack trees introduced by Schneier, and widespread in the industry, is advocated in the 2008 NATO report to govern the evaluation of the threat in risk analysis. Attack-defense trees have since been the subject of many theoretical works addressing different formal approaches. In 2017, M. Audinot et al. introduced a path semantics over a transition system for attack trees. Inspired by the later, we propose a two-player interpretation of the attack-tree formalism. To do so, we replace transition systems by concurrent game arenas and our associated semantics consist of strategies. We then show that the emptiness problem, known to be NP-complete for the path semantics, is now PSPACE-complete. Additionally, we show that the membership problem is coNP-complete for our two-player interpretation while it collapses to P in the path semantics.

Computer Science and Game Theory
Extending and Implementing the Stable Model Semantics

Patrik Simons

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0005010

2000-05-09

Abstract:An algorithm for computing the stable model semantics of logic programs is developed. It is shown that one can extend the semantics and the algorithm to handle new and more expressive types of rules. Emphasis is placed on the use of efficient implementation techniques. In particular, an implementation of lookahead that safely avoids testing every literal for failure and that makes the use of lookahead feasible is presented. In addition, a good heuristic is derived from the principle that the search space should be minimized. Due to the lack of competitive algorithms and implementations for the computation of stable models, the system is compared with three satisfiability solvers. This shows that the heuristic can be improved by breaking ties, but leaves open the question of how to break them. It also demonstrates that the more expressive rules of the stable model semantics make the semantics clearly preferable over propositional logic when a problem has a more compact logic program representation. Conjunctive normal form representations are never more compact than logic program ones.

Logic in Computer Science,Artificial Intelligence
The Correctness of Launchbury's Natural Semantics for Lazy Evaluation

Joachim Breitner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1405.3099

2014-05-13

Abstract:In his seminal paper "A Natural Semantics for Lazy Evaluation", John Launchbury proves his semantics correct with respect to a denotational semantics. We machine-checked the proof and found it to fail, and provide two ways to fix it: One by taking a detour via a modified natural semantics with an explicit stack, and one by adjusting the denotational semantics of heaps.

Programming Languages
Safety Verification For Two-Way Finite Automata With Monotonic Counters

Oh Ibarra,Z Dang,Zw Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45005-X_29

2003-01-01

Abstract:We look at a model of a two-way nondeterministic finite automaton augmented with monotonic counters operating on inputs of the form a(1)(i)(1) ...a(n)(i)(n) for some fixed n and distinct symbols a(1), ..., a(n), where i(1), ..., i(n) are nonnegative integers. Our results concern the following Presburger safety verification problem: Given a machine M, a state q, and a Presburger relation E over counter values, is there (i(1), ..., i(n)) such that M, when started in its initial state on the left end of the input a(1)(i)(1)... a(n)(i)(n) with all counters initially zero, reaches some configuration where the state is q and the counter values satisfy E? We give positive and negative results for different variations and generalizations of the model (e.g., augmenting the model with reversal-bounded counters, discrete clocks, etc.). In particular, we settle an open problem in [10].
The Attack as Intuitionistic Negation

Dov Gabbay,Michael Gabbay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1510.00077

2015-10-01

Abstract:We translate the argumentation networks ${\cal A}=(S, R)$ into a theory $D$ of intuitionistic logic, retaining $S$ as the domain and using intuitionistic negation to model the attack $R$ in ${\cal A}$: the attack $xRy$ is translated to $x\to\neg y$. The intuitionistic models of $D$ characterise the complete extensions of ${\cal A}$. The reduction of argumentation networks to intuitionistic logic yields, in addition to a representation theorem, some additional benefits: it allows us to give semantics to higher level attacks, where an attack "$xRy$" can itself attack another attack "$uRv$"; one can make higher level meta-statements $W$ on $(S, R)$ and such meta-statements can attack and be attacked in the domain.

Logic in Computer Science
An Acceptance Semantics for Stable Modal Knowledge

Peter Hawke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.379.27

2023-07-11

Abstract:We observe some puzzling linguistic data concerning ordinary knowledge ascriptions that embed an epistemic (im)possibility claim. We conclude that it is untenable to jointly endorse both classical logic and a pair of intuitively attractive theses: the thesis that knowledge ascriptions are always veridical and a `negative transparency' thesis that reduces knowledge of a simple negated `might' claim to an epistemic claim without modal content. We motivate a strategy for answering the trade-off: preserve veridicality and (generalized) negative transparency, while abandoning the general validity of contraposition. We survey and criticize various approaches for incorporating veridicality into domain semantics, a paradigmatic `information-sensitive' framework for capturing negative transparency and, more generally, the non-classical behavior of sentences with epistemic modals. We then present a novel information-sensitive semantics that successfully executes our favored strategy: stable acceptance semantics.

Logic in Computer Science
Quantitative testing semantics for non-interleaving

Emmanuel Beffara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0906.3994

2009-06-22

Logic in Computer Science

Abstract:This paper presents a non-interleaving denotational semantics for the ?-calculus. The basic idea is to define a notion of test where the outcome is not only whether a given process passes a given test, but also in how many different ways it can pass it. More abstractly, the set of possible outcomes for tests forms a semiring, and the set of process interpretations appears as a module over this semiring, in which basic syntactic constructs are affine operators. This notion of test leads to a trace semantics in which traces are partial orders, in the style of Mazurkiewicz traces, extended with readiness information. Our construction has standard may- and must-testing as special cases.
Hybrid Sabotage Modal Logic

Johan van Benthem,Lei Li,Chenwei Shi,Haoxuan Yin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exac006

2023-01-01

Journal of Logic and Computation

Abstract:We introduce a new hybrid modal logic HSML for reasoning about sabotage-style graph games with edge deletions, and provide a complete Hilbert-style axiomatization. We extend the completeness analysis to protocol models with restrictions on available edge deletions, and clarify the connections between HSML-style logics of edge deletions and recent modal logics for stepwise point deletion from graphs.

Dung's semantics satisfy attack removal monotonicity

Weakly Complete Semantics Based on Undecidedness Blocking

Enhancing Dung’s Preferred Semantics

Some Supplementaries to the Counting Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

New Logical Perspectives on Monotonicity.

On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method.

A Principle-Based Robustness Analysis of Admissibility-Based Argumentation Semantics

Partial Semantics of Argumentation

Partial Semantics of Argumentation: Basic Properties and Empirical

Stateful Structural Operational Semantics

An Update Semantics for Defeasible Obligations

Defense semantics of argumentation: revisit

Adversarial Formal Semantics of Attack Trees and Related Problems

Extending and Implementing the Stable Model Semantics

The Correctness of Launchbury's Natural Semantics for Lazy Evaluation

Safety Verification For Two-Way Finite Automata With Monotonic Counters

The Attack as Intuitionistic Negation

An Acceptance Semantics for Stable Modal Knowledge

Quantitative testing semantics for non-interleaving

Hybrid Sabotage Modal Logic