Studying the grounded semantics by using a suitable codification

One of the most representative semantics of Dung's approach is the grounded semantics. This semantics captures a skeptical approach, this means that given an argumentation framework the grounded semantics always identifies a single set of arguments, called grounded extension. It worth mentioning that the grounded semantics approach is one of the most useful argumentation approaches in real argumentation-based systems As argumentation can be abstractly defined as the interaction of arguments for and against some conclusion, a reasoning based on an abstract argumentation semantics for describing the interaction arguments is as important as to find an extension of an argumentation framework. In this paper, we introduce a novel formal argumentation method based on normal programs and rewriting systems which is able to - describe the interaction of arguments during the process of inferring an extension, and -define extensions of the grounded semantics based on specific rewriting rules which perform particular kind of reasoning as in reasoning by cases. Moreover, we point out that our codification of an argumentation framework as a normal program is a suitable codification for studying other abstract argumentation semantics as are the stable semantics and the preferred semantics.

[1]  V. Lifschitz,et al.  The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming , 1988, ICLP/SLP.

[2]  Kenneth A. Ross,et al.  The well-founded semantics for general logic programs , 1991, JACM.

[3]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.

[4]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  A Classification Theory of Semantics of Normal Logic Programs: II. Weak Properties , 1995, Fundam. Informaticae.

[5]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  A Classification Theory of Semantics of Normal Logic Programs: I. Strong Properties , 1995, Fundam. Informaticae.

[6]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  Logical models of argument , 2000, CSUR.

[7]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[8]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  Transformation-based bottom-up computation of the well-founded model , 1996, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[9]  Philippe Besnard,et al.  Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments , 2004, NMR.

[10]  Philippe Besnard,et al.  Characterization of Semantics for Argument Systems , 2004, KR.

[11]  Henri Prade,et al.  Using Arguments for Making Decisions: A Possibilistic Logic Approach , 2004, UAI.

[12]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[13]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Francisco Caballero,et al.  Successful Liver and Kidney Transplantation From Cadaveric Donors With Left‐Sided Bacterial Endocarditis , 2005, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[15]  Mauricio Osorio,et al.  Ground Nonmonotonic Modal Logic S5: New Results , 2005, J. Log. Comput..

[16]  Martin Caminada.  Contamination in Formal Argumentation Systems , 2005, BNAIC.

[17]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Evaluating Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism Adequacy , 2005, ECSQARU.

[18]  Mauricio Osorio,et al.  Logics with Common Weak Completions , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[19]  Alejandra López.  Implementing Pstable , 2006, LoLaCOM.

[20]  Juan Carlos Nieves,et al.  Inferring preferred extensions by Pstable semantics , 2007, LA-NMR.

[21]  Ulises Cortés,et al.  Inferring Preferred Extensions by Minimal Models , 2007 .