Justifying answer sets using argumentation
File(s)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Schulz, C
Toni, F
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
An answer set is a plain set of literals which has no further structure that would explain why certain literals are part of it and why others are not. We show how argumentation theory can help to explain why a literal is or is not contained in a given answer set by defining two justification methods, both of which make use of the correspondence between answer sets of a logic program and stable extensions of the assumption-based argumentation (ABA) framework constructed from the same logic program. Attack Trees justify a literal in argumentation-theoretic terms, i.e. using arguments and attacks between them, whereas ABA-Based Answer Set Justifications express the same justification structure in logic programming terms, that is using literals and their relationships. Interestingly, an ABA-Based Answer Set Justification corresponds to an admissible fragment of the answer set in question, and an Attack Tree corresponds to an admissible fragment of the stable extension corresponding to this answer set.
Date Issued
2015-02-11
Date Acceptance
2014-10-30
Citation
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 2015, 16, pp.59-110
ISSN
1475-3081
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Start Page
59
End Page
110
Journal / Book Title
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
Volume
16
Copyright Statement
© Cambridge University Press 2015. The final publication is available via Cambridge Journals Online at https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1471068414000702
Subjects
Science & Technology
Technology
Computer Science, Software Engineering
Computer Science, Theory & Methods
Logic
Computer Science
Science & Technology - Other Topics
answer set programming
assumption-based argumentation
stable extension
explanation
DEFEASIBLE LOGIC
EXPLANATION
SEMANTICS
PROGRAMS
SYSTEMS
Publication Status
Published