Sets of Attacking Arguments for Inconsistent Datalog Knowledge Bases

Logic-based argumentation is a well-known approach for reasoning with inconsistent logic knowledge bases. Such frameworks have been shown to suffer from a major practical drawback consisting of a large number of arguments and attacks. To address this issue, we provide an argumentation framework that considers sets of attacking arguments and provide a theoretical analysis of the new framework with respect to its syntactic and semantic properties. We provide a tool for generating such argumentation frameworks from a Datalog knowledge base and study their characteristics.

[1]  Simon Parsons,et al.  A Generalization of Dung's Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments , 2006, ArgMAS.

[2]  Giorgos Flouris,et al.  A comprehensive study of argumentation frameworks with sets of attacking arguments , 2019, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[3]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  What Can Argumentation Do for Inconsistent Ontology Query Answering? , 2013, SUM.

[4]  Jean-François Baget,et al.  On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[5]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Introduction to structured argumentation , 2014, Argument Comput..

[6]  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..

[7]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant Semantics for Description Logics , 2010, RR.

[8]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  A logic-based theory of deductive arguments , 2001, Artif. Intell..

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

[10]  Jean-François Baget,et al.  Graal: A Toolkit for Query Answering with Existential Rules , 2015, RuleML.

[11]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  Toward a More Efficient Generation of Structured Argumentation Graphs , 2018, COMMA.

[12]  Abdelraouf Hecham,et al.  On the Chase for All Provenance Paths with Existential Rules , 2017, RuleML+RR.

[13]  Francesca Toni,et al.  An Assumption-Based Framework for Non-Monotonic Reasoning , 1993, LPNMR.

[14]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  Graph Theoretical Properties of Logic Based Argumentation Frameworks: Proofs and General Results , 2017, GKR.

[15]  Abdallah Arioua,et al.  Logic-based argumentation with existential rules , 2017, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[16]  Leila Amgoud,et al.  Argumentation-based Ranking Logics , 2015, AAMAS.

[17]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  A Structural Benchmark for Logical Argumentation Frameworks , 2017, IDA.

[18]  Abdallah Arioua,et al.  DALEK: A Tool for Dialectical Explanations in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases , 2016, COMMA.

[19]  Torsten Schaub,et al.  ASP modulo CSP: The clingcon system , 2012, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[20]  Camille Bourgaux,et al.  Inconsistency Handling in Ontology-Mediated Query Answering , 2016 .

[21]  Leila Amgoud,et al.  Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems , 2014, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[22]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering: Rationality Properties and Computational Complexity Analysis , 2016, JELIA.

[23]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Meghyn Bienvenu,et al.  On the Complexity of Consistent Query Answering in the Presence of Simple Ontologies , 2012, AAAI.

[25]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  Inconsistency Measures for Repair Semantics in OBDA , 2018, IJCAI.

[26]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial , 2014, Argument Comput..

[27]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Computing Preferred Extensions for Argumentation Systems with Sets of Attacking Arguments , 2006, COMMA.

[28]  Francesca Toni,et al.  A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation , 2014, Argument Comput..