Justifying Answer Sets using Argumentation

20 Nov 2014Claudia SchulzFrancesca 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... (read more)

PDF Abstract

Code


No code implementations yet. Submit your code now

Tasks


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 used in the Paper


METHOD TYPE
🤖 No Methods Found Help the community by adding them if they're not listed; e.g. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition uses ResNet