Skip to main content

Ofer Arieli

The Academic College of Tel-Aviv Yaffo, School of Computer Science, Faculty Member

Followers

11

Following

4

Co-authors

4

Public Views

Full professor at Tel-Aviv Academic College

less

Gualtiero Piccinini

University of Missouri-Columbia

University of Tehran

David Pierre Leibovitz

Carleton University

Simon Fraser University

Dr. Muhammad Rafiq

University of the Punjab

Kansas State University

Hacettepe University

Francesco Ruotolo

Università della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli

Fusun Balik Sanli

Yildiz Technical University

Viacheslav Kuleshov

Stockholm University

Interests

Uploads

Papers by Ofer Arieli

A knowledge representation perspective on data integration

Hypersequential Argumentation Frameworks: An Instantiation in the Modal Logic S5

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents . This generalization allows to incorporate, as the deductive-base of our formalism, some well-studied logics like the modal logic S5, the relavent logic RM, and Godel-Dummett logic LC, to which no cut-free sequent calculi are known. In this paper we take S5 as the core logic and show that the hypersequent-based argumentation frameworks that are obtained in this case yield a robust defeasible variant of S5 with several desirable properties.

Argumentative Approaches to Reasoning with Maximal Consistency

Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach fo... more Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach for handling contradictory information. We introduce two argumentation-based methods for doing so: a declarative approach that is related to Dung-style semantics for abstract argumentation, and a computational approach that is based on extensions of Gentzen-type proofs systems. This brings about a new perspective on reasoning with MCS which shows a strong link between the latter and argumentation systems, and which can be extended to related formalisms. A by-product of this is the introduction of a dynamic proof system for classical logic and rebuttal attacks, which is sound and complete with respect to Dung's stable semantics for the associated argumentation framework.

On Minimality and Consistency Tolerance in Logical Argumentation Frameworks

Deductive Argumentation by Enhanced Sequent Calculi and Dynamic Derivations

Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 2016

Logic-based approaches for analyzing and evaluating arguments have been largely studied in recent... more Logic-based approaches for analyzing and evaluating arguments have been largely studied in recent years, yielding a variety of formal methods for argumentation-based reasoning. The goal of this paper is to provide an abstract, proof theoretical investigation of logical argumentation, where arguments are represented by sequents, conflicts between arguments are represented by sequent elimination rules, and deductions are made by dynamic proof systems extending standard sequent calculi.

Context-Aware Distance Semantics for Inconsistent Database Systems

Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2014

Normative reasoning by sequent-based argumentation

Journal of Logic and Computation, 2015

In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is p... more In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is paid to deontic conflicts, contrary-toduty and specificity cases, which are modeled by means of argumentative attacks. For this, we adopt a recently proposed framework for logical argumentation in which arguments are generated by a sequent calculus of a given base logic (see the papers of the second author in CLIMA'2013 and of the two authors in Volume 6 (No. 1) of Argument & Computation), and use standard deontic logic as our base logic. Argumentative attacks are realized by elimination rules that allow to discharge specific sequents. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach by means of various wellknown benchmark examples, and show that this approach is rich enough to capture a variety of paradigms for handling conflicting norms, such as reasoning with maximally consistent sets, prioritized norms, and deontic formalisms based on I/O logic.

Sequent-Based Argumentation for Normative Reasoning

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2014

Circumscriptive Approaches to Paraconsistent Reasoning

We introduce a general method for paraconsistent reasoning in the context of classical logic.

Distance-Based Repairs of Databases

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006

Modeling Paraconsistent Reasoning by Classical Logic

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002

Reducing Preferential Paraconsistent Reasoning to Classical Entailment

Journal of Logic and Computation, 2003

Towards a logical reconstruction of a theory for locally closed databases

ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 2010

The Closed World Assumption (CWA) on databases expresses the assumption that an atom not in the d... more The Closed World Assumption (CWA) on databases expresses the assumption that an atom not in the database is false. This assumption is applicable only in cases where the database has complete knowledge about the domain of discourse. In this article, we investigate locally closed databases, that is: databases that are sound but partially incomplete about their domain. Such databases consist of a standard database instance, augmented with a collection of Local Closed World Assumptions (LCWAs). A LCWA is a “local” form of the CWA, expressing that a database relation is complete in a certain area, called a window of expertise . In this work, we study locally closed databases both from a knowledge representation and from a computational perspective. At the representation level, the approach taken in this article distinguishes between the data that is conveyed by a database and the metaknowledge about the area in which the data is complete. We study the semantics of the LCWA's and rela...

Reasoning with maximal consistency by argumentative approaches

Journal of Logic and Computation, 2018

Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach fo... more Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach for handling contradictory information. In this paper we consider several variations of this kind of reasoning, for each one we introduce two complementary computational methods that are based on logical argumentation theory. The difference between the two approaches is in their ways of making consequences: one approach is of a declarative nature and is related to Dung-style semantics for abstract argumentation, while the other approach has a more proof-theoretical flavor, extending Gentzen-style sequent calculi. The outcome of this work is a new perspective on reasoning with MCS, which shows a strong link between the latter and argumentation systems, and which can be generalized to some related formalisms. As a by-product of this we obtain soundness and completeness results for the dynamic proof systems with respect to several of Dung's semantics. In a broader context, we believe that this work helps to better understand and evaluate the role of logic-based instantiations of argumentation frameworks.

Prioritized Sequent-Based Argumentation

by Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, and Christian Straßer

In this paper we integrate priorities in sequent-based argumentation. The former is a useful and ... more In this paper we integrate priorities in sequent-based argumentation. The former is a useful and extensively investigated tool in the context of non-monotonic reasoning, and the latter is a modular and general way of handling logical argumentation. Their combination offers a platform for representing and reasoning with maximally consistent subsets of prioritized knowledge bases. Moreover, many frameworks of the resulting formalisms satisfy common rationality postulates and other desirable properties, like conflict preservation.

Hypersequential Argumentation Frameworks: An Instantiation in the Modal Logic S5

by AnneMarie Borg and Ofer Arieli

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows to incorporate, as the deductive-base of our formalism, some well-studied logics like the modal logic S5, the relevant logic RM, and Gödel–Dummett logic LC, to which no cut-free sequent calculi are known. In this paper we take S5 as the core logic and show that the hypersequent-based argumentation frameworks that are obtained in this case yield a robust defeasible variant of S5 with several desirable properties.

Argumentative Approaches to Reasoning with Consistent Subsets of Premises

by Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, and Christian Straßer

Advances in Artificial Intelligence: From Theory to Practice: 30th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems, IEA/AIE 2017, Arras, France, June 27-30, 2017, Proceedings, Part I, 2017

It has been shown that entailments based on the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of a given set... more It has been shown that entailments based on the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of a given set of premises can be captured by Dung-style semantics for argumentation frameworks. This paper shows that these links are much tighter and go way beyond simplified forms of reasoning with MCS. Among others, we consider different types of entailments that these kinds of reasoning induce, extend the framework for arbitrary (not necessarily maximal) consistent subsets, and incorporate non-classical logics. The introduction of declarative methods for reasoning with MCS by means of (sequent-based) argumentation frameworks provides, in particular, a better understanding of logic-based argumentation and allows to reevaluate some negative results concerning the latter.

Normative reasoning by sequent-based argumentation

by Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer

In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is p... more In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is paid to deontic conflicts, contrary-to-duty and specificity cases, which are modeled by means of argumentative attacks. For this, we adopt a recently proposed framework for logical argumentation in which arguments are generated by a sequent calculus of a given base logic (see the papers of the second author in CLIMA'2013 and of the two authors in Volume~6 (No.~1) of Argument \& Computation), and use standard deontic logic as our base logic. Argumentative attacks are realized by elimination rules that allow to discharge specific sequents. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach by means of various well-known benchmark examples, and show that this approach is rich enough to capture a variety of paradigms for handling conflicting norms, such as reasoning with maximally consistent sets, prioritized norms, and deontic formalisms based on I/O logic.

Sequent-Based Argumentation for Normative Reasoning

by Christian Straßer and Ofer Arieli

In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is p... more In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is paid to normative conflicts, contrary-to-duty and specificity cases. These are modeled by means of argumentative attacks. For this, we adopt a recently proposed framework for logical argumentation in which arguments are generated by a sequent calculus of a given base logic (Arieli,~CLIMA'2013, pp.69--85), and use an intuitionistic variant of standard deontic logic as our base logic. Argumentative attacks are realized by elimination rules that allow to discharge specific sequents. We demonstrate our system by means of various well-known benchmark examples.

Dynamic Derivations for Sequent-Based Logical Argumentation

by Christian Straßer and Ofer Arieli

"We introduce a general approach for representing and reasoning with argumentation-based systems... more "We introduce a general approach for representing and reasoning
with argumentation-based systems. In our framework arguments are
represented by Gentzen-style sequents, attacks (conflicts)
between arguments are represented by sequent elimination rules,
and deductions are made by dynamic proof systems. This framework
accommodates different languages and logics in which arguments
may be represented, supports a variety of attack relations
including ones that reflect relevance considerations, and
tolerates dynamic changes in the argumentation setting by
revising derivations of assertions in light of new information.
"

A knowledge representation perspective on data integration

Hypersequential Argumentation Frameworks: An Instantiation in the Modal Logic S5

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents . This generalization allows to incorporate, as the deductive-base of our formalism, some well-studied logics like the modal logic S5, the relavent logic RM, and Godel-Dummett logic LC, to which no cut-free sequent calculi are known. In this paper we take S5 as the core logic and show that the hypersequent-based argumentation frameworks that are obtained in this case yield a robust defeasible variant of S5 with several desirable properties.

Argumentative Approaches to Reasoning with Maximal Consistency

Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach fo... more Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach for handling contradictory information. We introduce two argumentation-based methods for doing so: a declarative approach that is related to Dung-style semantics for abstract argumentation, and a computational approach that is based on extensions of Gentzen-type proofs systems. This brings about a new perspective on reasoning with MCS which shows a strong link between the latter and argumentation systems, and which can be extended to related formalisms. A by-product of this is the introduction of a dynamic proof system for classical logic and rebuttal attacks, which is sound and complete with respect to Dung's stable semantics for the associated argumentation framework.

On Minimality and Consistency Tolerance in Logical Argumentation Frameworks

Deductive Argumentation by Enhanced Sequent Calculi and Dynamic Derivations

Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 2016

Logic-based approaches for analyzing and evaluating arguments have been largely studied in recent... more Logic-based approaches for analyzing and evaluating arguments have been largely studied in recent years, yielding a variety of formal methods for argumentation-based reasoning. The goal of this paper is to provide an abstract, proof theoretical investigation of logical argumentation, where arguments are represented by sequents, conflicts between arguments are represented by sequent elimination rules, and deductions are made by dynamic proof systems extending standard sequent calculi.

Context-Aware Distance Semantics for Inconsistent Database Systems

Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2014

Normative reasoning by sequent-based argumentation

Journal of Logic and Computation, 2015

In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is p... more In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is paid to deontic conflicts, contrary-toduty and specificity cases, which are modeled by means of argumentative attacks. For this, we adopt a recently proposed framework for logical argumentation in which arguments are generated by a sequent calculus of a given base logic (see the papers of the second author in CLIMA'2013 and of the two authors in Volume 6 (No. 1) of Argument & Computation), and use standard deontic logic as our base logic. Argumentative attacks are realized by elimination rules that allow to discharge specific sequents. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach by means of various wellknown benchmark examples, and show that this approach is rich enough to capture a variety of paradigms for handling conflicting norms, such as reasoning with maximally consistent sets, prioritized norms, and deontic formalisms based on I/O logic.

Sequent-Based Argumentation for Normative Reasoning

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2014

Circumscriptive Approaches to Paraconsistent Reasoning

We introduce a general method for paraconsistent reasoning in the context of classical logic.

Distance-Based Repairs of Databases

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006

Modeling Paraconsistent Reasoning by Classical Logic

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002

Reducing Preferential Paraconsistent Reasoning to Classical Entailment

Journal of Logic and Computation, 2003

Towards a logical reconstruction of a theory for locally closed databases

ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 2010

The Closed World Assumption (CWA) on databases expresses the assumption that an atom not in the d... more The Closed World Assumption (CWA) on databases expresses the assumption that an atom not in the database is false. This assumption is applicable only in cases where the database has complete knowledge about the domain of discourse. In this article, we investigate locally closed databases, that is: databases that are sound but partially incomplete about their domain. Such databases consist of a standard database instance, augmented with a collection of Local Closed World Assumptions (LCWAs). A LCWA is a “local” form of the CWA, expressing that a database relation is complete in a certain area, called a window of expertise . In this work, we study locally closed databases both from a knowledge representation and from a computational perspective. At the representation level, the approach taken in this article distinguishes between the data that is conveyed by a database and the metaknowledge about the area in which the data is complete. We study the semantics of the LCWA's and rela...

Reasoning with maximal consistency by argumentative approaches

Journal of Logic and Computation, 2018

Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach fo... more Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach for handling contradictory information. In this paper we consider several variations of this kind of reasoning, for each one we introduce two complementary computational methods that are based on logical argumentation theory. The difference between the two approaches is in their ways of making consequences: one approach is of a declarative nature and is related to Dung-style semantics for abstract argumentation, while the other approach has a more proof-theoretical flavor, extending Gentzen-style sequent calculi. The outcome of this work is a new perspective on reasoning with MCS, which shows a strong link between the latter and argumentation systems, and which can be generalized to some related formalisms. As a by-product of this we obtain soundness and completeness results for the dynamic proof systems with respect to several of Dung's semantics. In a broader context, we believe that this work helps to better understand and evaluate the role of logic-based instantiations of argumentation frameworks.

Prioritized Sequent-Based Argumentation

by Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, and Christian Straßer

In this paper we integrate priorities in sequent-based argumentation. The former is a useful and ... more In this paper we integrate priorities in sequent-based argumentation. The former is a useful and extensively investigated tool in the context of non-monotonic reasoning, and the latter is a modular and general way of handling logical argumentation. Their combination offers a platform for representing and reasoning with maximally consistent subsets of prioritized knowledge bases. Moreover, many frameworks of the resulting formalisms satisfy common rationality postulates and other desirable properties, like conflict preservation.

Hypersequential Argumentation Frameworks: An Instantiation in the Modal Logic S5

by AnneMarie Borg and Ofer Arieli

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows to incorporate, as the deductive-base of our formalism, some well-studied logics like the modal logic S5, the relevant logic RM, and Gödel–Dummett logic LC, to which no cut-free sequent calculi are known. In this paper we take S5 as the core logic and show that the hypersequent-based argumentation frameworks that are obtained in this case yield a robust defeasible variant of S5 with several desirable properties.

Argumentative Approaches to Reasoning with Consistent Subsets of Premises

by Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg, and Christian Straßer

Advances in Artificial Intelligence: From Theory to Practice: 30th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems, IEA/AIE 2017, Arras, France, June 27-30, 2017, Proceedings, Part I, 2017

It has been shown that entailments based on the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of a given set... more It has been shown that entailments based on the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of a given set of premises can be captured by Dung-style semantics for argumentation frameworks. This paper shows that these links are much tighter and go way beyond simplified forms of reasoning with MCS. Among others, we consider different types of entailments that these kinds of reasoning induce, extend the framework for arbitrary (not necessarily maximal) consistent subsets, and incorporate non-classical logics. The introduction of declarative methods for reasoning with MCS by means of (sequent-based) argumentation frameworks provides, in particular, a better understanding of logic-based argumentation and allows to reevaluate some negative results concerning the latter.

Normative reasoning by sequent-based argumentation

by Ofer Arieli and Christian Straßer

In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is p... more In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is paid to deontic conflicts, contrary-to-duty and specificity cases, which are modeled by means of argumentative attacks. For this, we adopt a recently proposed framework for logical argumentation in which arguments are generated by a sequent calculus of a given base logic (see the papers of the second author in CLIMA'2013 and of the two authors in Volume~6 (No.~1) of Argument \& Computation), and use standard deontic logic as our base logic. Argumentative attacks are realized by elimination rules that allow to discharge specific sequents. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach by means of various well-known benchmark examples, and show that this approach is rich enough to capture a variety of paradigms for handling conflicting norms, such as reasoning with maximally consistent sets, prioritized norms, and deontic formalisms based on I/O logic.

Sequent-Based Argumentation for Normative Reasoning

by Christian Straßer and Ofer Arieli

In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is p... more In this paper we present an argumentative approach to normative reasoning. Special attention is paid to normative conflicts, contrary-to-duty and specificity cases. These are modeled by means of argumentative attacks. For this, we adopt a recently proposed framework for logical argumentation in which arguments are generated by a sequent calculus of a given base logic (Arieli,~CLIMA'2013, pp.69--85), and use an intuitionistic variant of standard deontic logic as our base logic. Argumentative attacks are realized by elimination rules that allow to discharge specific sequents. We demonstrate our system by means of various well-known benchmark examples.

Dynamic Derivations for Sequent-Based Logical Argumentation

by Christian Straßer and Ofer Arieli

"We introduce a general approach for representing and reasoning with argumentation-based systems... more "We introduce a general approach for representing and reasoning
with argumentation-based systems. In our framework arguments are
represented by Gentzen-style sequents, attacks (conflicts)
between arguments are represented by sequent elimination rules,
and deductions are made by dynamic proof systems. This framework
accommodates different languages and logics in which arguments
may be represented, supports a variety of attack relations
including ones that reflect relevance considerations, and
tolerates dynamic changes in the argumentation setting by
revising derivations of assertions in light of new information.
"

Prioritized Sequent-Based Argumentation @ AAMAS 2018

by AnneMarie Borg, Ofer Arieli, and Christian Straßer

In this paper we integrate priorities in sequent-based argumentation. The former is a useful and ... more In this paper we integrate priorities in sequent-based argumentation. The former is a useful and extensively investigated tool in the context of non-monotonic reasoning, and the latter is a modular and general way of handling logical argumentation. Their combination offers a platform for representing and reasoning with maximally consistent subsets of prioritized knowledge bases. Moreover, many frameworks of the resulting formalisms satisfy common rationality postulates and other desirable properties, like conflict preservation.

Hypersequential Argumentation Frameworks: An Instantiation in the Modal Logic S5 @ AAMAS 2018

by AnneMarie Borg and Ofer Arieli

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows to incorporate, as the deductive-base of our formalism, some well-studied logics like the modal logic S5, the relavent logic RM, and Gödel-Dummett logic LC, to which no cut-free sequent calculi are known. In this paper we take S5 as the core logic and show that the hypersequent-based argumentation frameworks that are obtained in this case yield a robust defeasible variant of S5 with several desirable properties.

Hypersequential Argumentation Frameworks: An Instantiation in the Modal Logic S5 @ UniLog 2018

by AnneMarie Borg and Ofer Arieli

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows to incorporate, as the deductive-base of our formalism, some well-studied logics like the modal logic S5, the relavent logic RM, and Gödel-Dummett logic LC, to which no cut-free sequent calculi are known. In this paper we take S5 as the core logic and show that the hypersequent-based argumentation frameworks that are obtained in this case yield a robust defeasible variant of S5 with several desirable properties.

Hypersequent-based Argumentation: An Instantiation in the Relevance Logic RM @ TAFA 2017

by AnneMarie Borg, Ofer Arieli, and Christian Straßer

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the weaknesses of logical argumentation reported in the literature and to prove several desirable properties, stated in terms of rationality postulates. For this, we take the relevance logic RM as the deductive base of our formalism. This logic is regarded as "by far the best understood of the Anderson-Belnap style systems'' (Dunn & Restall, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.6). It has a clear semantics in terms of Sugihara matrices, as well as sound and complete Hilbert- and Gentzen-type proof systems. The latter are defined by hypersequents and admit cut elimination. We show that hypersequent-based argumentation yields a robust defeasible variant of RM with many desirable properties (e.g., rationality postulates and crash-resistance).