Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T23:26:29.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparative Study of Some Central Notions of ASPIC+ and DeLP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2019

ALEJANDRO J. GARCÍA ,
HENRY PRAKKEN Open the ORCID record for HENRY PRAKKEN [Opens in a new window]  and
GUILLERMO R. SIMARI Open the ORCID record for GUILLERMO R. SIMARI [Opens in a new window]
ALEJANDRO J. GARCÍA
Affiliation:
Institute for Computer Science and Engineering (CONICET-UNS), Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca, Argentina (e-mail: [email protected])
HENRY PRAKKEN
Affiliation:
Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University & Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, Utrecht & Groningen, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected])
GUILLERMO R. SIMARI
Affiliation:
Institute for Computer Science and Engineering (CONICET-UNS), Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca, Argentina (e-mail: [email protected])
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper formally compares some central notions from two well-known formalisms for rule-based argumentation, DeLP and ASPIC+. The comparisons especially focus on intuitive adequacy and inter-translatability, consistency, and closure properties. As for differences in the definitions of arguments and attack, it turns out that DeLP’s definitions are intuitively appealing but that they may not fully comply with Caminada and Amgoud’s rationality postulates of strict closure and indirect consistency. For some special cases, the DeLP definitions are shown to fare better than ASPIC+. Next, it is argued that there are reasons to consider a variant of DeLP with grounded semantics, since in some examples its current notion of warrant arguably has counterintuitive consequences and may lead to sets of warranted arguments that are not admissible. Finally, under some minimality and consistency assumptions on ASPIC+ arguments, a one-to-many correspondence between ASPIC+ arguments and DeLP arguments is identified in such a way that if the DeLP warranting procedure is changed to grounded semantics, then ’s DeLP notion of warrant and ASPIC+ ’s notion of justification are equivalent. This result is proven for three alternative definitions of attack.

Keywords

rule-based argumentationdefeasible logic programmingASPIC+
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 358 - 390
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

References

Amgoud, L. and Besnard, P. 2013. Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 23, 229–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amgoud, L., Bodenstaff, L., Caminada, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Prakken, H., van Veenen, J. and Vreeswijk, G. 2006. Final review and report on formal argumentation system. Deliverable D2.6, ASPIC IST-FP6-002307.Google Scholar
Baroni, P., Caminada, M. and Giacomin, M. 2011. An introduction to argumentation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review 26, 365–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, P., Caminada, M. and Giacomin, M. 2018. Abstract argumentation frameworks and their semantics. In Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., and van der Torre, L., Eds, vol. 1. College Publications, London, 157–234.Google Scholar
Besnard, P. and Hunter, A. 2001. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128, 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besnard, P. and Hunter, A. 2008. Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caminada, M. and Amgoud, L. 2007. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171, 286–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caminada, M., Modgil, S. and Oren, N. 2014. Preferences and unrestricted rebut. In Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2014, Parsons, S., Oren, N., Reed, C., and Cerutti, F., Eds. IOS Press, Amsterdam etc, 209–220.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. and Wu, Y. 2011. On the limitations of abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC-11), Gent, Belgium.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C. 1995. On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1443–1448.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., García, A. J. and Simari, G. R. 2016. A structured argumentation system with backing and undercutting. Engineering Applications of AI 49, 149–166.Google Scholar
Dung, P. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, A. J., Chesñevar, C. I. and Simari, G. R. 1993. Making argument systems computationally attractive. In Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of the Chilean Computer Science Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, A. J. and Simari, G. R. 2004. Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4, 95–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, A. J. and Simari, G. R. 2014. Defeasible logic programming: DeLP-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers. Argument and Computation 5, 63–88.Google Scholar
García, A. J. and Simari, G. R. 2018. Argumentation based on logic programming. In Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., and van der Torre, L., Eds, vol. 1. College Publications, London, 408–433.Google Scholar
García, A. J., Simari, G. R. and Chesñevar, C. I. 1998. An argumentative framework for reasoning with inconsistent and incomplete information. In Proceedings of the ECAI’98 Workshop on Practical Reasoning and Rationality, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
García, A. J. 2000. Defeasible Logic Programming: Definition, Operational Semantics and Parallelism. Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science and Engineering Department, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina.Google Scholar
García, A. J., Chesñevar, C. I., Rotstein, N. D. and Simari, G. R. 2013. Formalizing dialectical explanation support for argument-based reasoning in knowledge-based systems. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 8, 3233–3247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, A. J., Rotstein, N. D., Tucat, M. and Simari, G. R. 2007. An argumentative reasoning service for deliberative agents. In Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management, Second International Conference, KSEM 2007, Zhang, Z. and Siekmann, J. H., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4798. Springer, 128–139.Google Scholar
Gorogiannis, N. and Hunter, A. 2011. Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical-logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence 175, 1479–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V. 1996. Foundations of logic programs. In Principles of Knowledge Representation, Brewka, G., Ed. CSLI Publications, 69–128.Google Scholar
Martínez, M. V., García, A. J. and Simari, G. R. 2012. On the use of presumptions in structured defeasible reasoning. In Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2012, Verheij, B., Szeider, S., and Woltran, S., Eds. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 245. IOS Press, 185–196.Google Scholar
Modgil, S. and Caminada, M. 2009. Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Rahwan, I. and Simari, G., Eds. Springer, Berlin, 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modgil, S. and Prakken, H. 2013. A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence 195, 361–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modgil, S. and Prakken, H. 2014. The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: A tutorial. Argument and Computation 5, 31–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modgil, S. and Prakken, H. 2018. Abstract rule-based argumentation. In Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., and van der Torre, L., Eds, vol. 1. College Publications, London, 73–141.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. 2000. The lottery paradox, knowledge, and rationality. The Philosophical Review 109, 373–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, S. and Cohen, A. 2018. On the relationship between DeLP and ASPIC+. In Argumentation-based Proofs of Endearment. Essays in Honor of Guillermo R. Simari on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Chesñevar, C. et al., Ed. College Publications, London, 293–323.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, H. 1999. Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities (preliminary report). In Formal Models of Agents, Meyer, J.-J. and Schobbens, P.-Y., Eds. Number 1760 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakken, H. 2016. Rethinking the rationality postulates for argumentation-based inference. In Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2016, Baroni, P., Gordon, T., Scheffler, T. and Stede, M., Eds. IOS Press, Amsterdam etc, 419–430.Google Scholar
Simari, G. R. and Loui, R. 1992. A mathematical treatment of defeasible argumentation and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simari, G. R., Chesñevar, C. I. and García, A. J. 1994a. Focusing inference in defeasible argumentation. In IV Iberoamerican Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IBERAMIA’94.Google Scholar
Simari, G. R., Chesñevar, C. I. and García, A. J. 1994b. The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation. In XIV International Conference of the Chilean Computer Society, November 1994, Concepcin, Chile, 111–122.Google Scholar
Teze, J. C., Gottifredi, S., García, A. J. and Simari, G. R. 2015. Improving argumentation-based recommender systems through context-adaptable selection criteria. Expert Systems with Applications 42, 21, 8243–8258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucat, M., García, A. J. and Simari, G. R. 2009. Using defeasible logic programming with contextual queries for developing recommender servers. In AAAI Fall Symposium Series.Google Scholar
Vreeswijk, G. 1997. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y. and Podlaszewski, M. 2015. Implementing crash-resistence and non-interference in logic-based argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 25, 303–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar