On the Epistemic Logic of Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks

Herzig, Andreas; Yuste-Ginel, Antonio

doi:10.24963/kr.2021/69

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, a few papers dealing with the combination of epistemic logic and formal argumentation have appeared. Broadly speaking, these works can be divided into two main branches: (i) those trying to provide a formalisation of the notion of justified belief based on argumentative tools such as [44,62,63,61,21,22]; and (ii) those using epistemic models for reasoning about uncertain AFs such as [60,59,49,50]. Clearly, the second one is strongly connected-both conceptually and technically-to some of the ideas presented here.…”

Section: Discussion Related Work and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A completion is a hypothetical removal of uncertainty, such that the formalised agent reasons under the assumption that her opponent's AF is such-and-such. In epistemic logic terms, this amounts to the notion of possible world, as mentioned in [14,15], and studied in detail in [59,50]. For a more elaborated comparison among the formalisms presented in this section and epistemic logic, the interested reader is referred to Section 6.…”

Section: Useful Dl-pa Formulasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Qualitative uncertainty and dynamics of argumentation through dynamic logic

Yuste-Ginel

Herzig

2023

Journal of Logic and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dynamics and uncertainty are essential features of real-life argumentation, and many recent studies have focused on integrating both aspects into Dung’s well-known abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). This paper proposes a combination of the two lines of research through a well-behaved logical tool: dynamic logic of propositional assignments (DL-PA). Our results show that the main reasoning tasks of virtually all existing formalisms qualitatively representing uncertainty about AFs are encodable in DL-PA. Moreover, the same tool is also useful for capturing dynamic structures, such as control AFs, as well as for developing more refined forms of argumentative communication under uncertainty.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Related Work and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Useful Dl-pa Formulasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualitative uncertainty and dynamics of argumentation through dynamic logic

Yuste-Ginel

Herzig

2023

Journal of Logic and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea of extending logic with epistemic constructs has been investigated also in the field of Answer Set Programming (ASP) (Gelfond 1991(Gelfond , 2011Fandinno, Faber, and Gelfond 2022). Epistemic logic programs, firstly proposed in (Gelfond 1991), extend disjunctive logic programs under the stable model semantics with modal constructs called subjective literals del Cerro 2020, 2021;Herzig and Yuste-Ginel 2021;Shen and Eiter 2022).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity of Credulous and Skeptical Acceptance in Epistemic Argumentation Framework

Alfano,

Greco,

Parisi

et al. 2024

AAAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dung’s Argumentation Framework (AF) has been extended in several directions. Among the numerous proposed extensions, three of them seem to be of particular interest and have correlations between them. These extensions are: constrained AF (CAF), where AF is augmented with (strong) constraints; epistemic AF (EAF), where AF is augmented with epistemic constraints; and incomplete AF (iAF), where arguments and attacks can be uncertain. While the complexity and expressiveness of CAF and iAF have been studied, that of EAF has not been explored so far. In this paper we investigate the complexity and expressivity of EAF. To this end, we first introduce the Labeled CAF (LCAF), a variation of CAF where constraints are defined over the alphabet of labeled arguments. Then, we investigate the complexity of credulous and skeptical reasoning and show that: i) EAF is more expressive than iAF (under preferred semantics), ii) although LCAF is a restriction of EAF where modal operators are not allowed, these frameworks have the same complexity, iii) the results for LCAF close a gap in the characterization of the complexity of CAF. Interestingly, even though EAF has the same complexity as LCAF, it allows modeling domain knowledge in a more natural and easy-to-understand way.

show abstract

Abstract Argumentation with Qualitative Uncertainty: An Analysis in Dynamic Logic

Herzig

Yuste-Ginel

2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

show abstract

On the Epistemic Logic of Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks

Cited by 3 publications

References 14 publications

Qualitative uncertainty and dynamics of argumentation through dynamic logic

Qualitative uncertainty and dynamics of argumentation through dynamic logic

Complexity of Credulous and Skeptical Acceptance in Epistemic Argumentation Framework

Abstract Argumentation with Qualitative Uncertainty: An Analysis in Dynamic Logic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About