An approach for encoding abstract dialectical frameworks and their semantics into classical higher-order logic is presented. Important properties and semantic relationships are formally encoded and proven using the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL. This approach allows for the computer-assisted analysis of abstract dialectical frameworks using automated and interactive reasoning tools within a uniform logic environment. Exemplary applications include the formal analysis and verification of meta-theoretical properties, and the generation of interpretations and extensions under specific semantic constraints.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are a recently introduced powerful generalization of Dung’s popular abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). Inspired by similar work for AFs, we introduce a decomposition scheme for ADFs, which proceeds along the ADF’s strongly connected components. We find that, for several semantics, the decomposition-based version coincides with the original semantics, whereas for others, it gives rise to a new semantics. These new semantics allow us to deal with pertinent problems such as odd-length negative cycles in a more general setting, that for instance also encompasses logic programs. We perform an exhaustive analysis of the computational complexity of these new, so-called naive-based semantics. The results are quite interesting, for some of them involve little-known classes of the so-called Boolean hierarchy (another hierarchy in between classes of the polynomial hierarchy). Furthermore, in credulous and sceptical entailment, the complexity can be different depending on whether we check for truth or falsity of a specific statement.

Generalizing the attack structure in argumentation frameworks (AFs) has been studied in different ways. Most prominently, the binary attack relation of Dung frameworks has been extended to the notion of collective attacks. The resulting formalism is often termed SETAFs. Another approach is provided via abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), where acceptance conditions specify the relation between arguments; restricting these conditions naturally allows for so-called support-free ADFs. The aim of the paper is to shed light on the relation between these two different approaches. To this end, we investigate and compare the expressiveness of SETAFs and support-free ADFs under the lens of 3-valued semantics. Our results show that it is only the presence of unsatisfiable acceptance conditions in support-free ADFs that discriminate the two approaches.

The exact relationship between formal argumentation and nonmonotonic logics is a research topic that keeps on eluding researchers despite recent intensified efforts. We contribute to a deeper understanding of this relation by investigating characterizations of abstract dialectical frameworks in conditional logics for nonmonotonic reasoning. We first show that in general, there is a gap between argumentation and conditional semantics when applying several intuitive translations, but then prove that this gap can be closed when focusing on specific classes of translations.

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) are argumentation frameworks where each node is associated with an acceptance condition. This allows us to model different types of dependencies as supports and attacks. Previous studies provided a translation from Normal Logic Programs (NLPs) to ADFs and proved the stable models semantics for a normal logic program has an equivalent semantics to that of the corresponding ADF. However, these studies failed in identifying a semantics for ADFs equivalent to a three-valued semantics (as partial stable models and well-founded models) for NLPs. In this work, we focus on a fragment of ADFs, called Attacking Dialectical Frameworks (ADF$^+$s), and provide a translation from NLPs to ADF$^+$s robust enough to guarantee the equivalence between partial stable models, well-founded models, regular models, stable models semantics for NLPs and respectively complete models, grounded models, preferred models, stable models for ADFs. In addition, we define a new semantics for ADF$^+$s, called L-stable, and show it is equivalent to the L-stable semantics for NLPs. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) generalize Dung's argumentation frameworks allowing various relationships among arguments to be expressed in a systematic way. We further generalize ADFs so as to accommodate arbitrary acceptance degrees for the arguments. This makes ADFs applicable in domains where both the initial status of arguments and their relationship are only insufficiently specified by Boolean functions. We define all standard ADF semantics for the weighted case, including grounded, preferred and stable semantics. We illustrate our approach using acceptance degrees from the unit interval and show how other valuation structures can be integrated. In each case it is sufficient to specify how the generalized acceptance conditions are represented by formulas, and to specify the information ordering underlying the characteristic ADF operator. We also present complexity results for problems related to weighted ADFs.

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) generalize Dung's argumentation frameworks allowing various relationships among arguments to be expressed in a systematic way. We further generalize ADFs so as to accommodate arbitrary acceptance degrees for the arguments. This makes ADFs applicable in domains where both the initial status of arguments and their relationship are only insufficiently specified by Boolean functions. We define all standard ADF semantics for the weighted case, including grounded, preferred and stable semantics. We illustrate our approach using acceptance degrees from the unit interval and show how other valuation structures can be integrated. In each case it is sufficient to specify how the generalized acceptance conditions are represented by formulas, and to specify the information ordering underlying the characteristic ADF operator. We also present complexity results for problems related to weighted ADFs.

By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of two-valued interpretations over a given propositional vocabulary A using only atoms from A. We also compare ADFs' expressiveness with that of (the two-valued semantics of) abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and propositional logic. While the computational complexity of the two-valued model existence problem for all these languages is (almost) the same, we show that the languages form a neat hierarchy with respect to their expressiveness. We then demonstrate that this hierarchy collapses once we allow to introduce a linear number of new vocabulary elements. We finally also analyse and compare the representational succinctness of ADFs (for two-valued model semantics), that is, their capability to represent two-valued interpretation sets in a space-efficient manner.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are a powerful generalization of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. ADFs allow to model argumentation scenarios such that ADF semantics then provide interpretations of the scenarios. Among the considerable number of ADF semantics, the naive-based ones are built upon the fundamental concept of conflict-freeness. Intuitively, a three-valued interpretation of an ADF’s statements is conflict-free iff all true statements can possibly be accepted, and all false statements cannot possibly be accepted. In this paper, we perform an exhaustive analysis of the computational complexity of naive-based semantics. The results are quite interesting, for some of them involve little-known classes of the so-called Boolean hierarchy (another hierarchy in between classes of the polynomial hierarchy). Furthermore in credulous and sceptical entailment, the complexity can be different depending on whether we check for truth or falsity of a specific statement.

We analyze the relative expressiveness of the two-valued semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and abstract dialectical frameworks. By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of two-valued interpretations over a given propositional vocabulary A using only atoms from A. While the computational complexity of the two-valued model existence problem for all these languages is (almost) the same, we show that the languages form a neat hierarchy with respect to their expressiveness. We then demonstrate that this hierarchy collapses once we allow to introduce a linear number of new vocabulary elements.