Graph Theoretical Properties of Logic Based Argumentation Frameworks: Proofs and General Results

  • Bruno Yun
  • Madalina Croitoru
  • Srdjan Vesic
  • Pierre Bisquert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10775)

Abstract

In this paper we extend our first results concerning the characterisation of the graph structure of logic based argumentation graphs with two main classes of findings. First we provide full proofs for the structural results of argumentation graphs built over Datalog± knowledge base composed of facts and negative constraints solely. Second, we also provide some structural properties for the general case of knowledge bases composed of facts, rules and negative constraints.

References

  1. Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 55(9), 2028–2048 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: A dialectical proof theory for universal acceptance in coherent logic-based argumentation frameworks. In: 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2016, 29 August–2 September 2016, The Hague, The Netherlands - Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence, PAIS 2016, pp. 55–63 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. Arioua, A., Croitoru, M., Buche, P.: DALEK: a tool for dialectical explanations in inconsistent knowledge bases. In: Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2016, Potsdam, Germany, 12–16 September, 2016, pp. 461–462 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. Arioua, A., Buche, P., Croitoru, M.: Explanatory dialogues with argumentative faculties over inconsistent knowledge bases. Expert Syst. Appl. 80, 244–262 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arioua, A., Croitoru, M., Vesic, S.: Logic-based argumentation with existential rules. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 90, 76–106 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Baget, J.-F., Leclère, M., Mugnier, M.-L., Salvat, E.: On rules with existential variables: walking the decidability line. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1620–1654 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2), 162–210 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bienvenu, M.: On the complexity of consistent query answering in the presence of simple ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 22–26 July 2012, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2012)Google Scholar
  10. Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Hecham, A.: Substantive irrationality in cognitive systems. In: 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2016, 29 August–2 September 2016, The Hague, The Netherlands - Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence (PAIS 2016), pp. 1642–1643 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2009, 19 June–1 July 2009, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, pp. 77–86 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Cerutti, F., Dunne, P.E., Giacomin, M., Vallati, M.: Computing preferred extensions in abstract argumentation: a SAT-Based approach. In: Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation - Second International Workshop, TAFA 2013, Beijing, China, 3–5 August 2013, Revised Selected papers, pp. 176–193 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. Croitoru, M., Vesic, S.: What can argumentation do for inconsistent ontology query answering? In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 15–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-Person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: The cf2 argumentation semantics revisited. J. Log. Comput. 23(5), 925–949 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Hecham, A., Arioua, A., Stapleton, G., Croitoru, M.: An empirical evaluation of argumentation in explaining inconsistency tolerant query answering. In: 30th International Workshop on Description Logics, DL 2017, Montpellier, France (2017)Google Scholar
  18. Hecham, A., Croitoru, M., Bisquert, P.: Argumentation-based defeasible reasoning for existential rules. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS 2017, São Paulo, Brazil, 8–12 May 2017, pp. 1568–1569 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. Lagniez, J.-M., Lonca, E., Mailly, J.-G.: CoQuiAAS: a constraint-based quick abstract argumentation solver. In: 2015 IEEE 27th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pp. 928–935. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  20. Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M., Savo, D.F.: Inconsistency-tolerant semantics for description logics. In: Hitzler, P., Lukasiewicz, T. (eds.) RR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6333, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15918-3_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thimm, M., Villata, S., Cerutti, F., Oren, N., Strass, H., Vallati, M.: Summary report of the first international competition on computational models of argumentation. AI Mag. 37(1), 102 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomazo, M., Rudolph, S.: Mixing materialization and query rewriting for existential rules. In: 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2014, 18–22 August 2014, Prague, Czech Republic - Including Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems, PAIS 2014, pp. 897–902 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. Yun, B., Croitoru, M.: An argumentation workflow for reasoning in ontology based data access. In: Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2016, Potsdam, Germany, 12–16 September 2016, pp. 61–68 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. Yun, B., Croitoru, M., Bisquert, P.: Are ranking semantics sensitive to the notion of core? In: Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Proceedings of AAMAS 2017, Sao Paulo, Bresil, 8–12 May 2017Google Scholar
  25. Yun, B., Vesic, S., Croitoru, M., Bisquert, P., Thomopoulos, R.: A structural benchmark for logical argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis (2017)Google Scholar
  26. Yun, B., Croitoru, M., Vesic, S., Bisquert, P.: A structural benchmark for logical argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS (2018)Google Scholar
  27. Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., You, J.-H.: Expressive completeness of existential rule languages for ontology-based query answering. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9–15 July 2016, pp. 1330–1337 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Yun
    • 1
  • Madalina Croitoru
    • 1
  • Srdjan Vesic
    • 2
  • Pierre Bisquert
    • 3
  1. 1.LIRMM, University of MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.CRIL, University of ArtoisArrasFrance
  3. 3.INRAMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations