Wyniki wyszukiwania - BazTech

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Fundamenta Informaticae

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Abducible Semantics and Argumentation

Osorio M., Carballido J. L., Zepeda C.

Fundamenta Informaticae

2017

Vol. 155, nr 3

293--319

We extend further the relationship that exists between logic programming semantics and some of the semantics of extensions defined on argumentation frameworks. We define a new logic programming semantics based on the addition of abducible atoms to those normal logic programs that do not have stable models, and consider the argumentation extensions that result from it when using a well-known translation mapping between argumentation frameworks and normal programs. We call this programming semantics the stable m-ab-m logic programming semantics. This semantics defines a new type of semantics of extensions on argumentation frameworks that is not comparable to the semi-stable argumentation semantics, yet both argumentation semantics share several properties, since they both generalize the stable semantics of extensions. We also define a semantics for normal logic programs based on minimal classical two-valued models and the Gelfond-Lifschitz reduct. This semantics corresponds to the semi-stable extensions in argumentation frameworks according to the mapping mentioned before; this way we obtain a general version of a semi-stable semantics for normal logic programs. Each of these new semantics has the property of being non-empty for any normal logic program or argumentation framework, and each of them agrees with the respective stable semantics in the case where the stable semantics is a non-empty set.

A Schema for Generating Relevant Logic Programming Semantics and its Applications in Argumentation Theory

Nieves J.C., Osorio M., Zepeda C.

Fundamenta Informaticae

2011

Vol. 106, nr 2-4

295-311

In the literature, there are several approaches which try to perform common sense reasoning. Among them, the approaches which have probably received the most attention the last two decades are the approaches based on logic programming semantics with negation as failure and argumentation theory. Even though both approaches have their own features, it seems that they share some common behaviours which can be studied by considering the close relationship between logic programming semantics and extension-based argumentation semantics. In this paper, we will present a general recursive schema for defining new logic programming semantics. This schema takes as input any basic logic programming semantics, such as the stable model semantics, and gives as output a new logic programming semantics which satisfies some desired properties such as relevance and the existence of the intended models for every normal program. We will see that these new logic programming semantics can define candidate extension-based argumentation semantics. These new argumentation semantics will overcome some of the weakness of the extension-based argumentation semantics based on admissible sets. In fact, we will see that some of these new argumentation semantics have similar behaviour to the extension-based argumentation semantics built in terms of strongly connected components.