A comparative study of some central notions of ASPIC^+ and \textit{DeLP}

DOI10.1017/S1471068419000437MaRDI QIDQ4957198zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Henry Prakken, Guillermo R. Simari, Alejandro J. García

Publication date 3 September 2021

Published in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (Search for Journal in Brave)

Copyright license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.02810

zbMATH Keywords

\(\mathit{ASPIC}^+\)defeasible logic programmingrule-based argumentation

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Logic programming (68N17) Logic in artificial intelligence (68T27)

Abstract: This paper formally compares some central notions from two well-known formalisms for rule-based argumentation, DeLP and ASPIC+. The comparisons especially focus on intuitive adequacy and inter-translatability, consistency, and closure properties. As for differences in the definitions of arguments and attack, it turns out that DeLP's definitions are intuitively appealing but that they may not fully comply with Caminada and Amgoud's rationality postulates of strict closure and indirect consistency. For some special cases, the DeLP definitions are shown to fare better than ASPIC+. Next, it is argued that there are reasons to consider a variant of DeLP with grounded semantics, since in some examples its current notion of warrant arguably has counterintuitive consequences and may lead to sets of warranted arguments that are not admissible. Finally, under some minimality and consistency assumptions on ASPIC+ arguments, a one-to-many correspondence between ASPIC+ arguments and DeLP arguments is identified in such a way that if the DeLP warranting procedure is changed to grounded semantics, then DeLP notion of warrant and ASPIC+'s notion of justification are equivalent. This result is proven for three alternative definitions of attack.

Recommendations

• On the relationship between DeLP and ASPIC^+
• Argument graphs for defeasible logic programming
• Corrigendum to: ``A general account of argumentation with preferences
• Five weaknesses of ASPIC^+
• An Alternative Foundation for DeLP: Defeating Relations and Truth Values

Cites work

• A general account of argumentation with preferences
• A logic-based theory of deductive arguments
• A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation.
• Abstract argumentation systems
• Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1490025 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1531964 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 6934384 (Why is no real title available?)
• Implementing crash-resistance and non-interference in logic-based argumentation
• Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties
• Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks
• On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games
• On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms

Cited in

(10)

• Incremental computation for structured argumentation over dynamic DeLP knowledge bases
• Five weaknesses of ASPIC^+
• On the relationship between DeLP and ASPIC^+
• Towards Evidence Retrieval Cost Reduction in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with Fallible Evidence
• When is argumentation deductive?
• Automatic knowledge generation for a persuasion dialogue system with enthymemes
• Constraints and lifting-based (conditional) preferences in abstract argumentation
• Principles for assumptions generation in enthymeme-based dialogue
• Towards a dialogue game-based semantics for extended abstract argumentation frameworks based on indecision-blocking
• Abstract argumentation frameworks with strong and weak constraints

This page was built for publication: A comparative study of some central notions of \(\mathit{ASPIC}^+\) and \textit{DeLP}

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4957198)