Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complete Extensions in Argumentation Coincide with 3-Valued Stable Models in Logic Programming

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

In this paper, we prove the correspondence between complete extensions in abstract argumentation and 3-valued stable models in logic programming. This result is in line with earlier work of [6] that identified the correspondence between the grounded extension in abstract argumentation and the well-founded model in logic programming, as well as between the stable extensions in abstract argumentation and the stable models in logic programming.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Caminada, M.W.A., ‘On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation’, in M. Fischer, W. van der Hoek, B. Konev, and A. Lisitsa, (eds.), Logics in Artificial Intelligence; 10th European Conference, JELIA 2006, Springer, 2006, pp. 111–123. LNAI 4160.

  2. Caminada, M.W.A., ‘On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation’, Technical Report UU-CS-2006-023, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, 2006.

  3. Caminada, M.W.A., ‘Semi-stable semantics’, in P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, (eds.), Computational Models of Argument; Proceedings of COMMA 2006, IOS Press, 2006, pp. 121–130.

  4. Caminada, M.W.A., ‘An algorithm for computing semi-stable semantics’, in Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitalive Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007), number 4724 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI, Berlin, Springer Verlag, 2007, pp. 222–234.

  5. Caminada M.W.A., L. Amgoud (2007) ‘On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms’. Artificial Intelligence 171(5-6): 286–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dung P.M. (1995) ‘On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games’. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dung P.M., Mancarella P., Toni F. (2007) ‘Computing ideal sceptical argumentation’. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15): 642–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eiter T., Leone N., Saccá D. (1997) ‘On the partial semantics for disjunctive deductive databases’. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 19(1-2): 59–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gabbay D.M., Garcez A. (2009) ‘Logical modes of attack in argumentation networks’. Studia Logica 93(2-3): 199–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jakobovits H., Vermeir D. (1999) ‘Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks’. Journal of logic and computation 9(2): 215–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pollock J.L. (1995) Cognitive Carpentry A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  12. Prakken, H., ‘An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments’, Technical Report UU-CS-2009-019, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, 2009.

  13. Prakken H., Sartor G. (1997) ‘Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities’. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7: 25–75

    Google Scholar 

  14. Przymusinski T.C. (1990) ‘The well-founded semantics coincides with the three-valued stable semantics’. Fundamenta Informaticae 13(4): 445–463

    Google Scholar 

  15. Verheij, B., ‘A labeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation’, in Manuela M. Veloso, editor, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, 2007, pp. 623–628.

  16. Vreeswijk, G.A.W., ‘An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems’, in P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, (eds.), Computational Models of Argument; Proceedings of COMMA 2006, IOS, 2006, pp. 109–120.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Lab for Intelligent and Adaptive Systems, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Belgium

    Yining Wu & Martin Caminada

  2. King’s College, London, UK

    Dov M. Gabbay

  3. Bar-Alan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Dov M. Gabbay

  4. University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Belgium

    Dov M. Gabbay

Authors
  1. Yining Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Caminada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dov M. Gabbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yining Wu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, Y., Caminada, M. & Gabbay, D.M. Complete Extensions in Argumentation Coincide with 3-Valued Stable Models in Logic Programming. Stud Logica 93, 383 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-009-9210-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-009-9210-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation