2020

  1. Jesse Heyninck, Gabriele Kern-Isberner and Matthias Thimm.
    On the Correspondence Between Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and Nonmonotonic Conditional Logics.
    In The Thirty-Third International Flairs Conference. 2020.
    URL BibTeX

    @inproceedings{heyninck2020correspondence,
    	title = "On the Correspondence Between Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and Nonmonotonic Conditional Logics",
    	author = "Heyninck, Jesse and Kern-Isberner, Gabriele and Thimm, Matthias",
    	booktitle = "The Thirty-Third International Flairs Conference",
    	year = 2020,
    	url = "https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/FLAIRS/FLAIRS20/paper/viewPaper/18502"
    }
    

  1. Ofer Arieli and Jesse Heyninck.
    .
    In 24th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence - ECAI 2020. 2020.
    URL BibTeX

    @inproceedings{,
    	heyninck2020c title = "Prioritized Simple Contrapositive Assumption-Based Frameworks",
    	author = "Arieli, Ofer and Heyninck, Jesse",
    	booktitle = "24th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence - ECAI 2020",
    	year = 2020,
    	url = "http://ecai2020.eu/papers/734_paper.pdf"
    }
    

  1. Jesse Heyninck and Christian Straßer.
    Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of ASPIC+ without undercut.
    Argument & Computation (Preprint):1–45.
    URL BibTeX

    @article{heyninckrationality,
    	title = "Rationality and maximal consistent sets for a fragment of ASPIC+ without undercut",
    	author = "Heyninck, Jesse and Stra{\ss}er, Christian",
    	journal = "Argument \& Computation",
    	number = "Preprint",
    	pages = "1--45",
    	publisher = "IOS Press",
    	url = "https://content.iospress.com/articles/argument-and-computation/aac200903"
    }
    

  1. Jesse Heyninck and Ofer Arieli.
    Simple contrapositive assumption-based argumentation frameworks.
    International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2020.
    Abstract Assumption-based argumentation is one of the most prominent formalisms for logical (or structured) argumentation, with tight links to different forms of defeasible reasoning. In this paper we study the Dung semantics for extended forms of assumption-based argumentation frameworks (ABFs), based on any contrapositive propositional logic, and whose defeasible assumptions are expressed by arbitrary formulas in that logic. We show that unless the falsity propositional constant is part of the defeasible assumptions, the grounded and the well-founded semantics for ABFs lack most of the desirable properties they have in abstract argumentation frameworks (AAFs), and that for simple definitions of the contrariness operator and the attacks relations, preferred and stable semantics are reduced to naive semantics. We also show the redundancy of the closure condition in the standard definition of Dung's semantics for ABFs, and investigate the use of disjunctive attacks in this setting. Finally, we show some close relations of reasoning with ABFs to reasoning with maximally consistent sets of premises, and consider some properties of the induced entailments, such as being cumulative, preferential, or rational relations that satisfy non-interference.
    URL, DOI BibTeX

    @article{HEYNINCK2020,
    	title = "Simple contrapositive assumption-based argumentation frameworks",
    	journal = "International Journal of Approximate Reasoning",
    	year = 2020,
    	issn = "0888-613X",
    	doi = "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2020.02.011",
    	url = "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888613X19303639",
    	author = "Jesse Heyninck and Ofer Arieli",
    	keywords = "Structured argumentation, Dung's semantics, Assumption-based argumentation, Deductive argumentation, Defeasible reasoning, Inconsistency management",
    	abstract = "Assumption-based argumentation is one of the most prominent formalisms for logical (or structured) argumentation, with tight links to different forms of defeasible reasoning. In this paper we study the Dung semantics for extended forms of assumption-based argumentation frameworks (ABFs), based on any contrapositive propositional logic, and whose defeasible assumptions are expressed by arbitrary formulas in that logic. We show that unless the falsity propositional constant is part of the defeasible assumptions, the grounded and the well-founded semantics for ABFs lack most of the desirable properties they have in abstract argumentation frameworks (AAFs), and that for simple definitions of the contrariness operator and the attacks relations, preferred and stable semantics are reduced to naive semantics. We also show the redundancy of the closure condition in the standard definition of Dung's semantics for ABFs, and investigate the use of disjunctive attacks in this setting. Finally, we show some close relations of reasoning with ABFs to reasoning with maximally consistent sets of premises, and consider some properties of the induced entailments, such as being cumulative, preferential, or rational relations that satisfy non-interference."
    }