Argumentation-Based Answer Set Justification
نویسندگان
چکیده
We suggest a method for justifying why a literal is or is not contained in the answer set of a logic program. This method makes use of argumentation theory, more precisely of stable ASPIC+ extensions. We describe a way to translate a logic program into an ASPIC+ argumentation theory and investigate the relation between answer sets of the logic program and stable extensions of the translated ASPIC+ argumentation theory. The structure of ASPIC+ arguments with respect to a stable extension is then used for the justification of literals with respect to an answer set. We also present an implementation of our justification method which displays justifications
منابع مشابه
Justifying answer sets using argumentation
An answer set is a plain set of literals which has no further structure that would explain why certain literals are part of it and why others are not. We show how argumentation theory can help to explain why a literal is or is not contained in a given answer set by defining two justification methods, both of which make use of the correspondence between answer sets of a logic program and stable ...
متن کاملABA-Based Answer Set Justification
We propose a method for justifying why a literal is or is not contained in an answer set of a logic program. This method makes use of argumentation theory, more precisely of stable AssumptionBased Argumentation (ABA) extensions. Given that a logic program can be translated into an ABA framework, we use the structure of ABA arguments and attacks between them for the justification of literals wit...
متن کاملUtilizing ASP for Generating and Visualizing Argumentation Frameworks
Within the area of computational models of argumentation, the instantiation-based approach is gaining more and more attention, not at least because meaningful input for Dung’s abstract frameworks is provided in that way. In a nutshell, the aim of instantiation-based argumentation is to form, from a given knowledge base, a set of arguments and to identify the conflicts between them. The resultin...
متن کاملA Labelling-Based Justification Status of Arguments
In this paper, we define a labelling-based justification status of the arguments in an argumentation framework. Our proposal allows for a more fine-grained notion of a justification status than the traditional extensions-based approaches. In particular, we are able to distinguish different levels at which an argument can be accepted or rejected. Our approach is fully compatible with traditional...
متن کاملCF2-extensions as Answer-set Models
Extension-based argumentation semantics have 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 based on admissible sets such as stable semantics can be characterized in terms of answer sets. In this pap...
متن کامل