Advertisement

ASPARTIX: Implementing Argumentation Frameworks Using Answer-Set Programming

  • Uwe Egly
  • Sarah Alice Gaggl
  • Stefan Woltran
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5366)

Abstract

The system ASPARTIX is a tool for computing acceptable extensions for a broad range of formalizations of Dung’s argumentation framework and generalizations thereof. ASPARTIX relies on a fixed disjunctive datalog program which takes an instance of an argumentation framework as input, and uses the answer-set solver DLV for computing the type of extension specified by the user.

Keywords

Logic Program Public Order Argumentation Framework Reasoning Problem Prefer Extension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171, 619–641 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34, 197–215 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13, 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie, M.C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 23, 1–32 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Fox, J.: Dungine: A java dung reasoner. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp. 360–368 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Cartwright, D., Atkinson, K.: Political engagement through tools for argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp. 116–127 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: (2008), http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~dg00/casapi.html
  10. 10.
    Nieves, J.C., Osorio, M., Cortés, U.: Preferred extensions as stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8, 527–543 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The dlv system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM ToCL 7, 499–562 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niemelä, I.: Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25, 241–273 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Comput 9, 365–386 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gebser, M., Liu, L., Namasivayam, G., Neumann, A., Schaub, T., Truszczyński, M.: The first answer set programming system competition. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4483, pp. 3–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Egly, U., Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks. Technical Report DBAI-TR-2008-62, Technische Universität Wien (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K.: Arguments, values and baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2007, pp. 151–160 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uwe Egly
    • 1
  • Sarah Alice Gaggl
    • 1
  • Stefan Woltran
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations