On the equivalence between assumption-based argumentation and logic programming (extended abstract)

In this work, we explain how Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is subsumed by Logic Programming (LP). The translation from ABA to LP (with a few restrictions on the ABA framework) results in a normal logic program whose semantics coincide with the semantics of the underlying ABA framework. Although the precise technicalities are beyond the current extended abstract (these can be found in the associated full paper) we provide a number of examples to illustrate the general idea

A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation Semantics for Extended Logic Programming and its Application to the Well-founded Semantics

Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships between the semantics and examine some essential properties concerning consistency and the coherence principle, which relates default negation and explicit negation. Most significantly, we place existing semantics put forward in the literature in our hierarchy and identify a particular argumentation semantics for which we prove equivalence to the paraconsistent well-founded semantics with explicit negation, WFSX$_p$. Finally, we present a general proof theory, based on dialogue trees, and show that it is sound and complete with respect to the argumentation semantics.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin

On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics

This work has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant Ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project), by CNPq (Universal 2012 – Proc. 473110/2012-1), and by CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).Peer reviewedPreprin

On the Equivalence between Logic Programming Semantics and Argumentation Semantics

Publisher PD

Planning with Incomplete Information

Planning is a natural domain of application for frameworks of reasoning about actions and change. In this paper we study how one such framework, the Language E, can form the basis for planning under (possibly) incomplete information. We define two types of plans: weak and safe plans, and propose a planner, called the E-Planner, which is often able to extend an initial weak plan into a safe plan even though the (explicit) information available is incomplete, e.g. for cases where the initial state is not completely known. The E-Planner is based upon a reformulation of the Language E in argumentation terms and a natural proof theory resulting from the reformulation. It uses an extension of this proof theory by means of abduction for the generation of plans and adopts argumentation-based techniques for extending weak plans into safe plans. We provide representative examples illustrating the behaviour of the E-Planner, in particular for cases where the status of fluents is incompletely known.Comment: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, April 9-11, 2000, Breckenridge, Colorad