Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expansion and Equivalence Relations on Argumentation Frameworks Based on Logic Programs

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies (EUMAS 2016, AT 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10207))

Abstract

Expansion and equivalence relations have been explored in the settings of abstract argumentation. However, in terms of structured arguments, expansion and equivalence relations have not been explored in the settings of structured arguments based on logic programs. In this paper, we draw connections between resulting argumentation frameworks from logic programs considering expansion and equivalence relations. We show that by considering different methods for constructing arguments and defining attack relations, one can define different expansion and equivalence relations between the resulting argumentation frameworks from logic programs. Moreover, we extended results from abstract argumentation into structured arguments based on logic programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A summary of these characterizations can be found in Sect. 4 of [20].

  2. 2.

    By quality of the inferred information, we mean the satisfaction of conditions such as consistency [7].

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P., Vesic, S.: Equivalence in logic-based argumentation. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 24(3), 181–208 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173, 413–436 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumann, R., Woltran, S.: The role of self-attacking arguments in characterizations of equivalence notions. J. Log. Comput. 26(4), 1293–1313 (2016). doi:10.1093/logcom/exu010

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA, vol. 144, pp. 121–130. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171, 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Charwat, G., Dvorák, W., Gaggl, S.A., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Methods for solving reasoning problems in abstract argumentation - a survey. Artif. Intell. 220, 28–63 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R., Godo, L., Alsinet, T.: Expansion operators for modelling agent reasoning in possibilistic defeasible logic programming. In: EUMAS 2005 - Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, Brussels, Belgium, December 7–8, 2005, pp. 474–475 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P., Fox, J.: Acceptability of arguments as ‘logical uncertainty’. In: ECSQARU, pp. 85–90 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gelder, A.V., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J. ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski, R., Bowen, K. (eds.) 5th Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1479–1497 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Guerrero, E., Nieves, J.C., Lindgren, H.: Semantic-based construction of arguments: an answer set programming approach. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 64, 54–74 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC\(^{+}\) framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nieves, J.C., Lindgren, H.: Deliberative argumentation for service provision in smart environments. In: Bulling, N. (ed.) Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS, vol. 8953, pp. 388–394. Springer, Cham (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Oikarinen, E., Woltran, S.: Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 175(14–15), 1985–2009 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Osorio, M., Nieves, J.C.: Range-based argumentation semantics as two-valued models. Theor. Pract. Log. Program. 17(1), 75–90 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 7(1), 25–75 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Günthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, 2nd edn, pp. 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Verheij, B.: Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC 1996) (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wu, Y., Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: Complete extensions in argumentation coincide with 3-valued stable models in logic programming. Stud. Log. 93(2–3), 383–403 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing Science, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden

    Juan Carlos Nieves

Authors
  1. Juan Carlos Nieves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Carlos Nieves .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Natalia Criado Pacheco

  2. Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Portugal

    Carlos Carrascosa

  3. Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain

    Nardine Osman

  4. Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Vicente Julián Inglada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nieves, J.C. (2017). Expansion and Equivalence Relations on Argumentation Frameworks Based on Logic Programs. In: Criado Pacheco, N., Carrascosa, C., Osman, N., Julián Inglada, V. (eds) Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies. EUMAS AT 2016 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10207. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59293-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59294-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation