In the last years, abstract argumentation has met with great success in AI,
since it has served to capture several non-monotonic logics for AI. Relations
between argumentation framework (AF) semantics and logic programming ones are
investigating more and more. In particular, great attention has been given to
the well-known stable extensions of an AF, that are closely related to the
answer sets of a logic program. However, if a framework admits a small
incoherent part, no stable extension can be provided. To overcome this
shortcoming, two semantics generalizing stable extensions have been studied,
namely semi-stable and stage. In this paper, we show that another perspective
is possible on incoherent AFs, called paracoherent extensions, as they have a
counterpart in paracoherent answer set semantics. We compare this perspective
with semi-stable and stage semantics, by showing that computational costs
remain unchanged, and moreover an interesting symmetric behaviour is
maintained. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

本文研究了抽象论证、非单调逻辑、论证框架、稳定扩展和松弛相容扩展之间的关系，比较了松弛稳定、状态和松弛相容扩展之间的异同，并阐述了松弛相容扩展的对称性。

基于协相 Kohesion 的答案集语义与论证框架的相遇

Paracoherent Answer Set Semantics meets Argumentation Frameworks

We study properties related to relevance in non-monotonic consequence
relations obtained by systems of structured argumentation. Relevance desiderata
concern the robustness of a consequence relation under the addition of
irrelevant information. For an account of what (ir)relevance amounts to we use
syntactic and semantic considerations. Syntactic criteria have been proposed in
the domain of relevance logic and were recently used in argumentation theory
under the names of non-interference and crash-resistance. The basic idea is
that the conclusions of a given argumentative theory should be robust under
adding information that shares no propositional variables with the original
database. Some semantic relevance criteria are known from non-monotonic logic.
For instance, cautious monotony states that if we obtain certain conclusions
from an argumentation theory, we may expect to still obtain the same
conclusions if we add some of them to the given database. In this paper we
investigate properties of structured argumentation systems that warrant
relevance desiderata.

研究了有关非单调后果关系的相关性性质。

结构化论证中的相关性

Relevance in Structured Argumentation

In the context of the Semantic Web, several approaches to the combination of
ontologies, given in terms of theories of classical first-order logic and rule
bases, have been proposed. They either cast rules into classical logic or limit
the interaction between rules and ontologies. Autoepistemic logic (AEL) is an
attractive formalism which allows to overcome these limitations, by serving as
a uniform host language to embed ontologies and nonmonotonic logic programs
into it. For the latter, so far only the propositional setting has been
considered. In this paper, we present three embeddings of normal and three
embeddings of disjunctive non-ground logic programs under the stable model
semantics into first-order AEL. While the embeddings all correspond with
respect to objective ground atoms, differences arise when considering
non-atomic formulas and combinations with first-order theories. We compare the
embeddings with respect to stable expansions and autoepistemic consequences,
considering the embeddings by themselves, as well as combinations with
classical theories. Our results reveal differences and correspondences of the
embeddings and provide useful guidance in the choice of a particular embedding
for knowledge combination.

本文研究了将经典一阶逻辑理论和规则集表示的本体组合起来的多种方法，介绍了一种在自我知识逻辑下嵌入本体和非单调逻辑程序的一阶自我知识逻辑嵌入方法，并比较了嵌入方法的稳定扩展和自我知识后果。