Related papers: Bilateral base-extension semantics
This paper combines two studies: a topological semantics for epistemic notions and abstract argumentation theory. In our combined setting, we use a topological semantics to represent the structure of an agent's collection of evidence, and…
Logic rules and inference are fundamental in computer science and have been studied extensively. However, prior semantics of logic languages can have subtle implications and can disagree significantly, on even very simple programs,…
In computational argumentation, gradual semantics are fine-grained alternatives to extension-based and labelling-based semantics . They ascribe a dialectical strength to (components of) arguments sanctioning their degree of acceptability.…
Dung's abstract argumentation theory is a widely used formalism to model conflicting information and to draw conclusions in such situations. Hereby, the knowledge is represented by so-called argumentation frameworks (AFs) and the reasoning…
Sandqvist's base-extension semantics for intuitionistic propositional logic defines a support relation parametrised by atomic bases, with validity identified as support in every base. Sandqvist's completeness theorem answers the global…
Bilateralists hold that the meanings of the connectives are determined by rules of inference for their use in deductive reasoning with asserted and denied formulas. This paper presents two bilateral connectives comparable to Prior's tonk,…
Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs) provide an alternative approach to computing argument acceptability in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs). Each argument is assigned an initial strength, which is then updated to a…
Weighted bipolar argumentation frameworks offer a tool for decision support and social media analysis. Arguments are evaluated by an iterative procedure that takes initial weights and attack and support relations into account. Until…
This paper formulates a bilateral account of harmony that is an alternative to one proposed by Francez. It builds on an account of harmony for unilateral logic proposed by K\"urbis and the observation that reading the rules for the…
Argumentation frameworks, consisting of arguments and an attack relation representing conflicts, are fundamental for formally studying reasoning under conflicting information. We use methods from mathematical logic, specifically…
Answer set programming is one of the most praised frameworks for declarative programming in general and non-monotonic reasoning in particular. There has been many efforts to extend stable model semantics so that answer set programs can use…
Linear logic (LL) is a resource-aware, abstract logic programming language that refines both classical and intuitionistic logic. Linear logic semantics is typically presented in one of two ways: by associating each formula with the set of…
We define base-extension semantics (Bes) using atomic systems based on sequent calculus rather than natural deduction. While traditional Bes aligns naturally with intuitionistic logic due to its constructive foundations, we show that…
We design a proof system for propositional classical logic that integrates two languages for Boolean functions: standard conjunction-disjunction-negation and binary decision trees. We give two reasons to do so. The first is…
Dung's Abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a key formalism for argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. It has been extended in several directions, including the possibility to express supports, leading to the development…
This article answers two questions (posed in the literature), each concerning the guaranteed existence of proofs free of double negation. A proof is free of double negation if none of its deduced steps contains a term of the form n(n(t))…
In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted,…
In this paper we discuss contrastive explanations for formal argumentation - the question why a certain argument (the fact) can be accepted, whilst another argument (the foil) cannot be accepted under various extension-based semantics. The…
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…
In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. Two ways of formalizing rebuttal have been proposed: In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with…