On the Equivalence between Logic Programming Semantics and Argumentation Semantics
نویسندگان
چکیده
In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between formal argumentation and logic programming from the perspective of semantics. We observe that one particular translation from logic programs to instantiated argumentation (the one described by Wu, Caminada and Gabbay) is able to serve as a basis for describing various equivalences between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics. In particular, we are able to show equivalence between regular semantics for logic programming and preferred semantics for formal argumentation. We also show that there exist logic programming semantics (L-stable semantics) that cannot be captured by any abstract argumentation semantics.
منابع مشابه
Computing Science On the Equivalence between Logic Programming Semantics and Argumentation Semantics
In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between formal argumentation and logic programming from the perspective of semantics. We observe that one particular translation from logic programs to instantiated argumentation (the one described by Wu, Caminada and Gabbay) is able to serve as a basis for describing various equivalences between logic programming semantics and argumentation se...
متن کاملWell-founded argumentation semantics for extended logic programming
This paper defines an argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and shows its equivalence to the well-founded semantics with explicit negation. We set up a general framework in which we extensively compare this semantics to other argumenta-tion semantics, including those of Dung, and Prakken and Sartor. We present a general dialectical proof theory for these argumenta-tion semantics.
متن کاملA Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation Semantics for Extended Logic Programming and its Application to the Well-founded Semantics
Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument’s premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument’s conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of...
متن کاملExtension-Based Argumentation Semantics via Logic Programming Semantics with Negation as Failure
Extension-based argumentation semantics have been shown to be a suitable approach for performing practical reasoning. Since extension-based argumentation semantics were formalized in terms of relationships between atomic arguments, it has been shown that extension-based argumentation semantics (such as the grounded semantics and stable semantics) can be characterized by logic programming semant...
متن کاملA Schema for Generating Relevant Logic Programming Semantics and its Applications in Argumentation Theory
In the literature, there are several approaches which try to perform common sense reasoning. Among them, the approaches which have probably received the most attention the last two decades are the approaches based on logic programming semantics with negation as failure and argumentation theory. Even though both approaches have their own features, it seems that they share some common behaviours ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2013