Justifying Answer Sets using Argumentation

20 Nov 2014  ·  Claudia Schulz, Francesca Toni ·

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. read more

PDF Abstract
No code implementations yet. Submit your code now

Tasks


Datasets


  Add Datasets introduced or used in this paper

Results from the Paper


  Submit results from this paper to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the community compare results to other papers.

Methods


No methods listed for this paper. Add relevant methods here