In 2005 the author introduced networks which allow attacks on attacks of any level. So if a → b reads a attacks 6, then this attack can itself be attacked by another node c. This attack itself can attack another node d. This situation can be iterated to any level with attacks and nodes attacking other attacks and other nodes. In this paper we provide semantics (of extensions) to such networks. We offer three different approaches to obtaining semantics. 1. The (...) translation approach This uses the methodology of ' Logic by translation'. We translate faithfully the new networks into ordinary Dung networks with more nodes and extract the semantics from the translation. 2. The labelling approach This method regards the arrows as additional entities to be attacked and to mount attacks and applies a variation of the usual machinery of Camindada like labelling to the network. The new concept we need to employ here is that of 'joint attacks'. 3. The logic programming approach We translate the higher level network into a logic program and obtain semantics for it through known semantics for logic programs. We then compare our methods with those of S. Modgil and P. M. Dung et al. (shrink)

In 2005 the author introduced networks which allow attacks on attacks of any level. So if a → b reads a attacks 6, then this attack can itself be attacked by another node c. This attack itself can attack another node d. This situation can be iterated to any level with attacks and nodes attacking other attacks and other nodes. In this paper we provide semantics to such networks. We offer three different approaches to obtaining semantics. 1. The translation approach (...) This uses the methodology of ' Logic by translation'. We translate faithfully the new networks into ordinary Dung networks with more nodes and extract the semantics from the translation. 2. The labelling approach This method regards the arrows as additional entities to be attacked and to mount attacks and applies a variation of the usual machinery of Camindada like labelling to the network. The new concept we need to employ here is that of 'joint attacks'. 3. The logic programming approach We translate the higher level network into a logic program and obtain semantics for it through known semantics for logic programs. We then compare our methods with those of S. Modgil and P. M. Dung et al. (shrink)

This paper is part of a research program centered around argumentation networks and offering several research directions for argumentation networks, with a view of using such networks for integrating logics and network reasoning. In Section 1 we introduce our program manifesto. In Section 2 we motivate and show how to substitute one argumentation network as a node in another argumentation network. Substitution is a purely logical operation and doing it for networks, besides developing their theory further, also helps us see (...) how to bring logic and networks closer together. Section 3 develops the formal properties of the new kind of network and Section 4 offers general discussion and comparison with the literature. (shrink)

In the current paper, we re-examine how abstract argumentation can be formulated in terms of labellings, and how the resulting theory can be applied in the field of modal logic. In particular, we are able to express the (complete) extensions of an argumentation framework as models of a set of modal logic formulas that represents the argumentation framework. Using this approach, it becomes possible to define the grounded extension in terms of modal logic entailment.

What precisely are fragments of classical first-order logic showing “modal” behaviour? Perhaps the most influential answer is that of Gabbay 1981, which identifies them with so-called “finite-variable fragments”, using only some fixed finite number of variables (free or bound). This view-point has been endorsed by many authors (cf. van Benthem 1991). We will investigate these fragments, and find that, illuminating and interesting though they are, they lack the required nice behaviour in our sense. (Several new negative results support this claim.) (...) As a counterproposal, then, we define a large fragment of predicate logic characterized by its use of only bounded quantification. This so-called guarded fragment enjoys the above nice properties, including decidability, through an effectively bounded finite model property. (These are new results, obtained by generalizing notions and techniques from modal logic.) Moreover, its own internal finite variable hierarchy turns out to work well. Finally, we shall make another move. The above analogy works both ways. Modal operators are like quantifiers, but quantifiers are also like modal operators. This observation inspires a generalized semantics for first-order predicate logic with accessibility constraints on available assignments (cf. N´emeti 1986, 1992) which moves the earlier quantifier restrictions into the semantics. This provides a fresh look at the landscape of possible predicate logics, including candidates sharing various desirable features with basic modal logic – in particular, its decidability. (shrink)

A simple Henkin-style completeness proof for Gödel 3-valued propositional logic G3 is provided. The idea is to endow G3 with an under-determined semantics of the type defined by Dunn. The key concept in u-semantics is that of “under-determined interpretation”. It is shown that consistent prime theories built upon G3 can be understood as u-interpretations. In order to prove this fact we follow Brady by defining G3 as an extension of Anderson and Belnap’s positive fragment of First Degree Entailment Logic.

An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's ('On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n- Person Games', Artificial Intelligence , 77, 321-357) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may (...) be used, which leads to three corresponding kinds of defeat: undermining, rebutting and undercutting defeats. The nature of the inference rules, the structure of the logical language on which they operate and the origin of the preferences are, apart from some basic assumptions, left unspecified. The resulting framework integrates work of Pollock, Vreeswijk and others on the structure of arguments and the nature of defeat and extends it in several respects. Various rationality postulates are proved to be satisfied by the framework, and several existing approaches are proved to be a special case of the framework, including assumption-based argumentation and DefLog. (shrink)