Computing Science 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 provide a formal connection 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
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 کاملPreferred Extensions as Minimal Models of Clark's Completion Semantics
Dung established the connections between several logic programming semantics and various argumentation framework semantics. In this paper we present a characterization of the preferred semantics of argumentation frameworks (which is defined in terms of a maximal admissible set w.r.t. set inclusion) in terms of minimal logic models of Clark’s completion. Additionally, we make use of integer prog...
متن کاملComputing the Stratified Minimal Models Semantic
It is well-known, in the area of argumentation theory, that there is a direct relationship between extension-based argumentation semantics and logic programming semantics with negation as failure. One of the main implication of this relationship is that one can explore the implementation of argumentation engines by considering logic programming solvers. Recently, it was proved that the argument...
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 کامل