Evidential-Based Higher-Order Set Argumentation Framework

Evidential argumentation extends Dung's abstract argumentation by requiring arguments and interactions to be backed by chains of evidence rooted in prima-facie elements. However, existing formalisms lack a unified treatment of evidential support, higher-order relations (attacks and supports targeting arbitrary elements), and collective interactions (sources as sets). In this paper, we introduce the Evidential-Based Higher-Order Set Argumentation Framework (EHSAF), which conservatively generalises several existing frameworks within a single expressive setting. We develop two complete semantics for EHSAFs: an \emph{adjacent complete labelling semantics} that admits multiple truth values (true, false, undecided) for arguments in support cycles, reflecting an open epistemic attitude toward future evidence; and an \emph{extension-based complete semantics} that follows a strict evidentialist stance, accepting only arguments with well-founded support chains. We show that these two semantics diverge in the presence of support cycles, and prove their equivalence under support-acyclicity. To enable computational reasoning, we provide a normal propositional encoding of EHSAFs and prove that, in three-valued Łukasiewicz logic, its models correspond precisely to the adjacent complete labellings. We further extend this encoding to continuous fuzzy logics (G{ö}del, Product, and Łukasiewicz), defining a continuous fuzzy normal encoded semantics. We establish that this fuzzy semantics satisfies key properties---continuity, monotonicity, boundary conditions, and solution existence---and that its ternarisation recovers the adjacent complete labellings under natural t-norm conditions. Our framework thus unifies expressive argumentation with principled three-valued and fuzzy semantics, bridging the gap between qualitative and quantitative reasoning about evidence.

Representative Sets in Propositional Abduction

The propositional abduction problem is a well-known form of non-monotonic reasoning where we are asked to find an explanation of a given manifestation. Recently, there has been an influx of results asking more refined questions about the solution space rather than only individual solutions. For example, we might be interested in finding two solutions that are sufficiently far from each other (diverse solutions) in the solution space. In this paper we consider a related representation question where we ask if a given set of explanations S can represent any other explanation (that is, whether their symmetric difference is smaller than a given k). We first study this problem from a classical complexity perspective and obtain a complete classification. While only a handful of cases are tractable, the increase in complexity compared to classical abduction is often smaller than expected. We then study the parameterized complexity for several parameters and obtain new tractable and hard cases. Interestingly, a full parameterized complexity classification would require resolving the parameterized complexity of the covering radius problem from coding theory. To the best of our knowledge, no useful relationship between coding theory and non-monotonic reasoning has previously been established, but such connections seemingly become important when asking more complex questions about solution spaces.

Tractable Reasoning and Conjunctive Query Answering for Defeasible DL-Lite under Rational Closure

In Description Logics (DLs), reasoning under Rational Closure (RC) is a well-known and widely accepted non-monotonic formalism to handle defeasible knowledge. In this paper, we study the application of RC to the core and horn variants of the DL-Lite family of lightweight description logics. We analyze both entitlement (instance checking) and Conjunctive Query (CQ) answering under RC. Our main contribution is providing a plug-in architecture that builds upon existing standard classical reasoners, establishing that reasoning and CQ answering under RC for DL-Lite can be done efficiently with minimal computational overhead.

Distinguishing Revision and Delayed Elaboration in Incremental Narrative Interpretation

Both human and AI systems that process narrative or long-form content operate incrementally: input is received over time, and internal representations must be updated accordingly. Incremental interpretation, therefore, depends not only on what is represented but also on how the representational state evolves under new evidence. We distinguish two structurally different update operators that arise in narrative interpretation: revision-driven update and delayed elaboration. Revision-driven updates retract or replace previously committed structure in response to a contradiction and are therefore non-monotonic. Delayed elaboration, by contrast, refines initially underspecified elements through constraint addition without retracting prior commitments, yielding monotonic extension of the interpretive state. Although both operators may alter how earlier material is understood, they impose fundamentally different structural requirements on state transitions. Using visual narratives as a diagnostic domain, we demonstrate how a structured narrative representation can explicitly separate committed from underspecified content and support both update operators during incremental construction. Through a worked example, we show how delayed elaboration enables monotonic refinement of interpretive state, while revision requires non-monotonic correction. We discuss the broader relevance of this structural distinction for incremental reasoning and hybrid symbolic-neural systems.

PHISHREV: A Hybrid Machine Learning and Post-Hoc Non-monotonic Reasoning Framework for Context-Aware Phishing Website Classification

Phishing detection systems are predominantly rely on statistical machine learning models, which often lack contextual reasoning and are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. In this work, we propose a hybrid framework that integrates machine learning classifiers with non-monotonic reasoning using Answer Set Programming (ASP) to enable context-aware decision refinement. The proposed post-hoc reasoning layer incorporates expert knowledge to revise classifier predictions through formal belief revisions. Experimental results indicate that the reasoning module modifies 5.08\% of classifier outputs, leading to improved decision consistency. A key advantage is that new domain knowledge can be incorporated into the reasoning layer in $\mathcal{O}(n)$ time, eliminating the need for model retraining.