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

An Entailment Relation for Reasoning on the Web

Reasoning on the Web is receiving an increasing attention because of emerging fields such as Web adaption and Semantic Web. Indeed, the advanced functionalities striven for in these fields call for reasoning capabilities. Reasoning on the Web, however, is usually done using existing techniques rarely fitting the Web. As a consequence, additional data processing like data conversion from Web formats (e.g. XML or HTML) into some other formats (e.g. classical logic terms and formulas) is often needed and aspects of the Web (e.g. its inherent inconsistency) are neglected. This article first gives requirements for an entailment tuned to reasoning on the Web. Then, it describes how classical logic’s entailment can be modified so as to enforce these requirements. Finally, it discusses how the proposed entailment can be used in applying logic programming to reasoning on the Web

An encompassing framework for Paraconsistent Logic Programs

AbstractWe propose a framework which extends Antitonic Logic Programs [Damásio and Pereira, in: Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Springer, 2001, p. 748] to an arbitrary complete bilattice of truth-values, where belief and doubt are explicitly represented. Inspired by Ginsberg and Fitting's bilattice approaches, this framework allows a precise definition of important operators found in logic programming, such as explicit and default negation. In particular, it leads to a natural semantical integration of explicit and default negation through the Coherence Principle [Pereira and Alferes, in: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1992, p. 102], according to which explicit negation entails default negation. We then define Coherent Answer Sets, and the Paraconsistent Well-founded Model semantics, generalizing many paraconsistent semantics for logic programs. In particular, Paraconsistent Well-Founded Semantics with eXplicit negation (WFSXp) [Alferes et al., J. Automated Reas. 14 (1) (1995) 93–147; Damásio, PhD thesis, 1996]. The framework is an extension of Antitonic Logic Programs for most cases, and is general enough to capture Probabilistic Deductive Databases, Possibilistic Logic Programming, Hybrid Probabilistic Logic Programs, and Fuzzy Logic Programming. Thus, we have a powerful mathematical formalism for dealing simultaneously with default, paraconsistency, and uncertainty reasoning. Results are provided about how our semantical framework deals with inconsistent information and with its propagation by the rules of the program