Argumentation Frameworks with Necessities

In this paper, we introduce argumentation frameworks with necessities (AFNs), an extension of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs) taking into account a necessity relation as a kind of support relation between arguments (an argument is necessary for another). We redefine the acceptability semantics for these extended frameworks and we show how the necessity relation allows a direct and easy correspondence between a fragment of logic programs (LPs) and AFNs. We introduce then a further generalization of AFNs that extends the necessity relation to deal with sets of arguments. We give a natural adaptation of the acceptability semantics to this new context and show that the generalized frameworks allow to encode arbitrary logic programs.

[1]  Robert E. Mercer,et al.  Monotonic Answer Set Programming , 2009, J. Log. Comput..

[2]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Nir Oren,et al.  Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation , 2008, COMMA.

[4]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[5]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

[6]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Philippe Besnard,et al.  Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic , 2009, SUM.

[8]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Complete Extensions in Argumentation Coincide with 3-Valued Stable Models in Logic Programming , 2009, Stud Logica.

[9]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[10]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks , 2010, Argument Comput..

[11]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Abstract Dialectical Frameworks , 2010, KR.

[12]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Logic for Default Reasoning , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Witold Łukaszewicz.  Considerations on default logic: an alternative approach 1 , 1988 .

[14]  Serena Villata,et al.  Support in Abstract Argumentation , 2010, COMMA.

[15]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks , 2010 .

[16]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  Constrained Argumentation Frameworks , 2006, KR.

[17]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  An Argument-Based Approach to Using Multiple Ontologies , 2009, SUM.

[18]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases , 1991, New Generation Computing.

[19]  Thomas Lukasiewicz.  Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on the Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems‚ FoIKS 2012‚ Kiel‚ Germany‚ March 5−9‚ 2012 , 2000 .

[20]  Farid Nouioua,et al.  From the textual description of an accident to its causes , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[21]  C. Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[22]  Ulises Cortés,et al.  Preferred extensions as stable models , 2008, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[23]  Michael Clarke,et al.  Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[24]  Jean-Rémi Bourguet,et al.  Towards a Unified Model of Preference-Based Argumentation , 2010, FoIKS.