Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-k2rjg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-30T08:44:06.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Semantics of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: A Logic Programming Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2020

Gianvincenzo Alfano Open the ORCID record for Gianvincenzo Alfano [Opens in a new window] ,
Sergio Greco ,
Francesco Parisi  and
Irina Trubitsyna
Gianvincenzo Alfano
Affiliation:
DIMES Department, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy (e-mail: g.alfano@dimes.unical.it, greco@dimes.unical.it, fparisi@dimes.unical.it, i.trubitsyna@dimes.unical.it)
Sergio Greco
Affiliation:
DIMES Department, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy (e-mail: g.alfano@dimes.unical.it, greco@dimes.unical.it, fparisi@dimes.unical.it, i.trubitsyna@dimes.unical.it)
Francesco Parisi
Affiliation:
DIMES Department, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy (e-mail: g.alfano@dimes.unical.it, greco@dimes.unical.it, fparisi@dimes.unical.it, i.trubitsyna@dimes.unical.it)
Irina Trubitsyna
Affiliation:
DIMES Department, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy (e-mail: g.alfano@dimes.unical.it, greco@dimes.unical.it, fparisi@dimes.unical.it, i.trubitsyna@dimes.unical.it)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently there has been an increasing interest in frameworks extending Dung’s abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Popular extensions include bipolar AFs and AFs with recursive attacks and necessary supports. Although the relationships between AF semantics and Partial Stable Models (PSMs) of logic programs has been deeply investigated, this is not the case for more general frameworks extending AF.

In this paper we explore the relationships between AF-based frameworks and PSMs. We show that every AF-based framework Δ can be translated into a logic program PΔ so that the extensions prescribed by different semantics of Δ coincide with subsets of the PSMs of PΔ. We provide a logic programming approach that characterizes, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of several AF-based frameworks. This result allows also to define the semantics for new AF-based frameworks, such as AFs with recursive attacks and recursive deductive supports.

Keywords

abstract argumentationargumentation semanticspartial stable models

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 20 , Issue 5: 36th International Conference on Logic Programming Special Issue I , September 2020 , pp. 703 - 718
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alcântara, J. F. L., Sá, S., and Guadarrama, J. C. A. 2019. On the equivalence between abstract dialectical frameworks and logic programs. TPLP 19, 5-6, 941–956.Google Scholar
Alfano, G., Cohen, A., Gottifredi, S., Greco, S., Parisi, F., and Simari, G. R. 2020. Dynamics in abstract argumentation frameworks with recursive attack and support relations. In ECAI (To appear).Google Scholar
Alfano, G., Greco, S., and Parisi, F. 2017. Efficient computation of extensions for dynamic abstract argumentation frameworks: An incremental approach. In IJCAI. 49–55.Google Scholar
Alfano, G., Greco, S., and Parisi, F. 2018. A meta-argumentation approach for the efficient computation of stable and preferred extensions in dynamic bipolar argumentation frameworks. Intelligenza Artificiale 12, 2, 193–211.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L. and Vesic, S. 2011. A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 63, 2, 149–183.Google Scholar
Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., and Guida, G. 2011. AFRA: Argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks. IJAR 52, 1, 19–37.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. and Dunne, P. E. 2007. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. AI 171, 619–641.Google Scholar
Bistarelli, S., Rossi, F., and Santini, F. 2018. A novel weighted defence and its relaxation in abstract argumentation. IJAR 92, 66–86.Google Scholar
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R. A., and Toni, F. 1997. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. AI 93, 63–101.Google Scholar
Caminada, M., Sá, S., Alcântara, J. F. L., and Dvorák, W. 2015. On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics. IJAR 58, 87–111.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. and Schulz, C. 2017. On the equivalence between assumption-based argumentation and logic programming. JAIR 60, 779–825.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C., Fandinno, J., del Cerro, L. F., and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. 2017. Valid attacks in argumentation frameworks with recursive attacks. In Proc. of COMMONSENSE.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C., Fandinno, J., del Cerro, L. F., and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. 2018. Structure-based semantics of argumentation frameworks with higher-order attacks and supports. In COMMA. 29–36.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. 2013. Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding. IJAR 54, 7, 876–899.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., Gottifredi, S., Garcia, A. J., and Simari, G. R. 2014. A survey of different approaches to support in argumentation systems. The Know. Eng. Rev. 29, 5, 513–550.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., Gottifredi, S., Garcia, A. J., and Simari, G. R. 2015. An approach to abstract argumentation with recursive attack and support. J. Appl. Log. 13, 4, 509–533.Google Scholar
Craven, R. and Toni, F. 2016. Argument graphs and assumption-based argumentation. AI 233, 1–59.Google Scholar
Dung, P. M. 1991. Negations as hypotheses: An abductive foundation for logic programming. In ICLP. 3–17.Google Scholar
Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. AI 77, 321–358.Google Scholar
Fazzinga, B., Flesca, S., and Parisi, F. 2015. On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumentation frameworks. TOCL 16, 3, 22:1–22:39.Google Scholar
Gaggl, S. A., Manthey, N., Ronca, A., Wallner, J. P., and Woltran, S. 2015. Improved answer-set programming encodings for abstract argumentation. TPLP 15, 4-5, 434–448.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Leone, N., Maratea, M., Perri, S., Ricca, F., and Schaub, T. 2018. Evaluation techniques and systems for answer set programming: a survey. In IJCAI. 5450–5456.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In ICSLP. 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gottifredi, S., Cohen, A., Garcia, A. J., and Simari, G. R. 2018. Characterizing acceptability semantics of argumentation frameworks with recursive attack and support relations. AI 262, 336–368.Google Scholar
Greco, S. and Parisi, F. 2016. Incremental computation of deterministic extensions for dynamic argumentation frameworks. In JELIA. 288–304.Google Scholar
Greco, S. and Saccà, D. 1999. Complexity and expressive power of deterministic semantics for datalog– . Inf. Comput. 153, 1, 81–98.Google Scholar
Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I., Seipel, D., Simons, P., and You, J.-H. 2006. Unfolding partiality and disjunctions in stable model semantics. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7, 1.Google Scholar
Modgil, S. 2009. Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. AI 173, 9-10, 901–934.Google Scholar
Nouioua, F. and Risch, V. 2011. Argumentation frameworks with necessities. In SUM. 163–176.Google Scholar
Saccà, D. 1997. The expressive powers of stable models for bound and unbound DATALOG queries. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 54, 3, 441–464.Google Scholar
Saccà, D. and Zaniolo, C. 1990. Stable models and non-determinism in logic programs with negation. In PODS. 205–217.Google Scholar
Sakama, C. and Rienstra, T. 2017. Representing argumentation frameworks in answer set programming. Fundam. Inform. 155, 3, 261–292.Google Scholar
Simari, G. R. and Rahwan, I., Eds. 2009. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Villata, S., Boella, G., Gabbay, D. M., and van der Torre, L. W. N. 2012. Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation. AMAI 66, 1-4, 163–197.Google Scholar
Wu, Y., Caminada, M., and Gabbay, D. M. 2009. Complete extensions in argumentation coincide with 3-valued stable models in logic programming. Studia Logica 93, 2-3, 383–403.Google Scholar