Abstract
In our daily life, humans often argue with each other using abductive knowledge which includes not only facts known to be true but also hypotheses that may be expected to be true. This paper presents a novel approach to find out every skeptical (resp. credulous) explanation which is the set of hypotheses needed to skeptically (resp. credulously) justify the argument supporting a disputer’s claim based on abductive knowledge base under the specified argumentation semantics. The main subject of this paper is the definition of the Abductive Argumentation Framework which is equivalent to the widely adopted Dung’s framework except handling hypotheses, and from which skeptical (resp. credulous) explanations in argumentation can be defined. In general, there are multiple explanations under the specified argumentation semantics. Our approach is capable of finding out all of them by means of applying traditional abductive logic programming to our previous work of computing argumentation semantics in answer set programming (ASP). Thus this study eventually reveals the greatest advantage of applying ASP to the crucial decision problems in the research field of argumentation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Proc. of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 59–64 (2004)
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1), 63–101 (1997)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proc. of the first International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pp. 121–130 (2006)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dung, P.M.: An argumentation theoretic foundation of Logic Programming. The Journal of Logic Programming 22(2), 151–177 (1995); A shortened version appeared as Negations as hypothesis: An abductive foundation for logic programming. In: Proc. of ICLP 1991, pp. 3–17. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)
Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114–159 (2006)
Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., Scarcello, F.: A deductive system for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Fuhrbach, U., Dix, J., Nerode, A. (eds.) LPNMR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1265, pp. 364–375. Springer, Heidelberg (1997), http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/proj/dlv/
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of the fifth International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (ICLP/SLP 1988), pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)
Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abductive Logic Programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 2(6), 719–770 (1992)
Nieves, J.C., Cortes, U., Osorio, M.: Preferred extensions as stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8(4), 527–543 (2008)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 218–319. Kluwer, Dordecht (2001)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)
Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M.O., Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: An abstract argumentation framework for handling dynamics. In: Proceedings of 12th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2008), pp. 131–139 (2008)
Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: An abductive framework for computing knowledge base updates. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(6), 671–713 (2003)
Schweimeier, R., Schroeder, M.: A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation Semantics for Extended Logic Programming and its Application to the Well-founded Semantics. In: Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, vol. 5(1, 2), pp. 207–242. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)
Wakaki, T., Satoh, K., Nitta, K., Sakurai, S.: Finding Priorities of Circumscription Policy as a Skeptical Explanation in Abduction. Journal of IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems E-81D(10), 1111–1119 (1998)
Wakaki, T., Nitta, K.: Computing argumentation semantics in answer set programming. In: New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5547, pp. 254–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wakaki, T., Nitta, K., Sawamura, H. (2010). Computing Abductive Argumentation in Answer Set Programming. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6057. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12804-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12805-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)