Argument-based Logic Programming

  • Alejandro J. García
  • Jürgen Dix
  • Guillermo R. Simari

In this chapter we describe several formalisms for integrating Logic ProgrammingandArgumentation. Research on the relation between logic programming and argumentation has been and still is fruitful in both directions: Some argumentation formalisms were used to define semantics for logic programming and also logic programming was used for providing an underlying representational language for non-abstract argumentation formalisms.


Logic Program Logic Programming Argument Structure Argumentation Framework Nonmonotonic Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research was funded by CONICET Argentina Project PIP 5050, and SGCyT, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina.


  1. 1.
    T. Alsinet, C. Chesñevar, L. Godo, S. Sandri, and G. Simari. Formalizing argumentative reasoning in a possibilistic logic programming setting with fuzzy unification. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 48(3):711–729, 2008.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Alsinet, C. Chesñevar, L. Godo, and G. Simari. A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: Formalization and logical properties. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 159(10):208–1228, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, M. J. Maher, and A. Rock. A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In Proceedings of European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pages 459–463, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Antoniou, D. Billington, and M. J. Maher. Normal forms for defeasible logic. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 160–174. MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Bryant and P. J. Krause. A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 23:1–34, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Bryant, P. J. Krause, and G. Vreeswijk. Argue tuProlog: A Lightweight Argumentation Engine for Agent Applications. In Proc. of 1st Int. Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA06), pages 27–32. IOS Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Caminada and L. Amgoud. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171(5-6):286–310, 2007.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Chesñevar and G. Simari. Modelling inference in argumentation through labelled deduction: Formalization and logical properties. Logica Universalis, 1(1):93–124, 2007.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Dix, C. Chesñevar, F. Stolzenburg, and G. Simari. Relating Defeasible and Normal Logic Programming through Transformation Properties. Theoretical Computer Science, 290(1):499–529, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321–357, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Ferretti, M. Errecalde, A. García, and G. Simari. Decision rules and arguments in defeasible decision making. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Proc. 2nd Int. Conference on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA), volume 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 171–182. IOS Press,2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Gabbay. Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems. In K. Apt, editor, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pages 439–459. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. García, N. Rotstein, M. Tucat, and G. Simari. An argumentative reasoning service for deliberative agents. In Z. Zhang and J. Siekmann, editors, LNAI 4798 Proceedings of the 2nd. International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management (KSEM 2007), pages ,128–139. Springer-Verlag, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. J. García, N. D. Rotstein, and G. R. Simari. Dialectical explanations in defeasible argumentation. In K. Mellouli, editor, ECSQARU, volume 4724 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 295–307. Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. J. García and G. R. Simari. Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. TPLP, 4(1-2):95–138, 2004.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, and M. Magidor. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44:167–207, 1990.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. Lifschitz. Foundations of logic programs. In G. Brewka, editor, Principles of Knowledge Representation, pages 69–128. CSLI Pub., 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Makinson. General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In D. Gabbay, editor, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming (vol 3): Nonmonotonic and Uncertain Reasoning, pages 35–110. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Nute. Defeasible reasoning. In Proc. of the 20th annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Nute. Defeasible logic. In D. Gabbay, C. Hogger, and J.A.Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol 3, pages 355–395. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Prakken. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4 (331-368), 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7 (25-75), 1997.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In D.Gabbay, editor, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd ed. Kluwer, 2000.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. Schweimeier and M. Schroeder. A parameterised hierarchy of argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and its application to the well-founded semantics. TPLP, 5(1-2):207–242, 2005.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. R. Simari, C. I. Chesñevar, and A. J. García. The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation. In Proc. of the XIV Int. Conf. of the Chilenean Computer Science Society, pages 335–344, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. R. Simari and R. P. Loui. A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53:125–157, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    F. Stolzenburg, A. J. García, C. I. Chesñevar, and G. R. Simari. Computing generalized specificity. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 13(1):87–113, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandro J. García
    • 1
  • Jürgen Dix
    • 2
  • Guillermo R. Simari
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del SurConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Bahia BlancaArgentina
  2. 2.Department of Informatics Clausthal University of TechnologyClausthal-ZellerfeldGermany
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversidad Nacional del Sur Bahia BlancaBahia BlancaArgentina

Personalised recommendations