On statistical learning of graphs

We study PAC and online learnability of hypothesis classes formed by copies of a countably infinite graph G, where each copy is induced by permuting G's vertices. This corresponds to learning a graph's labeling, knowing its structure and label set. We consider classes where permutations move only finitely many vertices. Our main result shows that PAC learnability of all such finite-support copies implies online learnability of the full isomorphism type of G, and is equivalent to the condition of automorphic triviality. We also characterize graphs where copies induced by swapping two vertices are not learnable, using a relaxation of the extension property of the infinite random graph. Finally, we show that, for all G and k>2, learnability for k-vertex permutations is equivalent to that for 2-vertex permutations, yielding a four-class partition of infinite graphs, whose complexity we also determine using tools coming from both descriptive set theory and computability theory.

SCC-recursiveness in infinite argumentation (extended version)

Argumentation frameworks (AFs) are a foundational tool in artificial intelligence for modeling structured reasoning and conflict. SCC-recursiveness is a well-known design principle in which the evaluation of arguments is decomposed according to the strongly connected components (SCCs) of the attack graph, proceeding recursively from "higher" to "lower" components. While SCC-recursive semantics such as \cft and \stgt have proven effective for finite AFs, Baumann and Spanring showed the failure of SCC-recursive semantics to generalize reliably to infinite AFs due to issues with well-foundedness. We propose two approaches to extending SCC-recursiveness to the infinite setting. We systematically evaluate these semantics using Baroni and Giacomin's established criteria, showing in particular that directionality fails in general. We then examine these semantics' behavior in finitary frameworks, where we find some of our semantics satisfy directionality. These results advance the theory of infinite argumentation and lay the groundwork for reasoning systems capable of handling unbounded or evolving domains.

Comparing Dialectical Systems: Contradiction and Counterexample in Belief Change (Extended Version)

Dialectical systems are a mathematical formalism for modeling an agent updating a knowledge base seeking consistency. Introduced in the 1970s by Roberto Magari, they were originally conceived to capture how a working mathematician or a research community refines beliefs in the pursuit of truth. Dialectical systems also serve as natural models for the belief change of an automated agent, offering a unifying, computable framework for dynamic belief management. The literature distinguishes three main models of dialectical systems: (d-)dialectical systems based on revising beliefs when they are seen to be inconsistent, p-dialectical systems based on revising beliefs based on finding a counterexample, and q-dialectical systems which can do both. We answer an open problem in the literature by proving that q-dialectical systems are strictly more powerful than p-dialectical systems, which are themselves known to be strictly stronger than (d-)dialectical systems. This result highlights the complementary roles of counterexample and contradiction in automated belief revision, and thus also in the reasoning processes of mathematicians and research communities.