Bridging abstract dialectical argumentation and Boolean gene regulation

TL;DR

This paper explores the mathematical similarities between abstract dialectical frameworks and Boolean networks, aiming to bridge the gap between argumentation theory and gene regulation models for cross-disciplinary insights.

Contribution

It provides a partial review that clarifies similarities and differences, proposing a unified perspective to foster cross-fertilization between the two fields.

Findings

Identifies formal similarities between ADFs and BNs

Clarifies key differences such as conflict-freedom and asynchrony

Suggests avenues for interdisciplinary research

Abstract

This paper leans on two similar areas so far detached from each other. On the one hand, Dung's pioneering contributions to abstract argumentation, almost thirty years ago, gave rise to a plethora of successors, including abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). On the other hand, Boolean networks (BNs), devised as models of gene regulation, have been successful for studying the behavior of molecular processes within cells. ADFs and BNs are similar to each other: both can be viewed as functions from vectors of bits to vectors of bits. As soon as similarities emerge between these two formalisms, however, differences appear. For example, conflict-freedom is prominent in argumentation (where we are interested in a self-consistent, i.e., conflict-free, set of beliefs) but absent in BNs. By contrast, asynchrony (where only one gene is updated at a time) is conspicuous in BNs and lacking in argumentation. Finally, while a monotonicity-based notion occurs in signed reasoning of both argumentation and gene regulation, a different, derivative-based notion only appears in the BN literature. To identify common mathematical structure between both formalisms, these differences need clarification. This contribution is a partial review of both these areas, where we cover enough ground to exhibit their more evident similarities, to then reconcile some of their apparent differences. We highlight a range of avenues of research resulting from ironing out discrepancies between these two fields. Unveiling their common concerns should enable these two areas to cross-fertilize so as to transfer ideas and results between each other.