Justifying answer sets using argumentation
From MaRDI portal
Publication:4593019
DOI10.1017/S1471068414000702zbMATH Open1379.68301arXiv1411.5635OpenAlexW3099229524WikidataQ62042299 ScholiaQ62042299MaRDI QIDQ4593019FDOQ4593019
Authors: Claudia Schulz, Francesca Toni 
Publication date: 9 November 2017
Published in: Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (Search for Journal in Brave)
Abstract: 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 extensions of the Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) framework constructed from the same logic program. Attack Trees justify a literal in argumentation-theoretic terms, i.e. using arguments and attacks between them, whereas ABA-Based Answer Set Justifications express the same justification structure in logic programming terms, that is using literals and their relationships. Interestingly, an ABA-Based Answer Set Justification corresponds to an admissible fragment of the answer set in question, and an Attack Tree corresponds to an admissible fragment of the stable extension corresponding to this answer set.
Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5635
Recommendations
Cites Work
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Computing ideal sceptical argumentation
- An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning
- On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games
- Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach
- Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic
- Logic Programming for Multiagent Planning with Negotiation
- Logic programming, knowledge representation, and nonmonotonic reasoning. Essays dedicated to Michael Gelfond on the occasion of his 65th birthday
- Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning. 11th international conference, LPNMR 2011, Vancouver, Canada, May 16--19, 2011. Proceedings
- An argumentation-theoretic foundation for logic programming
- Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents
- Generating explanations for biomedical queries
- Justifications for logic programs under answer set semantics
- Title not available (Why is that?)
Cited In (20)
- Assumption-based argumentation for extended disjunctive logic programming
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Debugging Non-ground ASP Programs: Technique and Graphical Tools
- Answering the “why” in answer set programming – A survey of explanation approaches
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Characterising and Explaining Inconsistency in Logic Programs
- Deriving conclusions from non-monotonic cause-effect relations
- Explanation Generation for Multi-Modal Multi-Agent Path Finding with Optimal Resource Utilization using Answer Set Programming
- Witnesses for Answer Sets of Logic Programs
- Enablers and Inhibitors in Causal Justifications of Logic Programs
- Harnessing Incremental Answer Set Solving for Reasoning in Assumption-Based Argumentation
- Semantic-based construction of arguments: an answer set programming approach
- Justifications for logic programs under answer set semantics
- Labellings for assumption-based and abstract argumentation
- Introduction to the TPLP Special Issue on User-oriented Logic Programming and Reasoning Paradigms
- EMIL: extracting meaning from inconsistent language. Towards argumentation using a controlled natural language interface
- Justifications for Logic Programs Under Answer Set Semantics
- Contrastive explanations for answer-set programs
- Justifications for programs with disjunctive and causal-choice rules
Uses Software
This page was built for publication: Justifying answer sets using argumentation
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4593019)
