Correct Reasoning pp 57-71

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7265) | Cite as

Parameterized Splitting: A Simple Modification-Based Approach

  • Ringo Baumann
  • Gerhard Brewka
  • Wolfgang Dvořák
  • Stefan Woltran

Abstract

In an important and much cited paper Vladimir Lifschitz and Hudson Turner have shown how, under certain conditions, logic programs under answer set semantics can be split into two disjoint parts, a “bottom” part and a “top” part. The bottom part can be evaluated independently of the top part. Results of the evaluation, i.e., answer sets of the bottom part, are then used to simplify the top part. To obtain answer sets of the original program one simply has to combine an answer set of the simplified top part with the answer set which was used to simplify this part. Similar splitting results were later proven for other nonmonotonic formalisms and also Dung style argumentation frameworks.

In this paper we show how the conditions under which splitting is possible can be relaxed. The main idea is to modify also the bottom part before the evaluation takes place. Additional atoms are used to encode conditions on answer sets of the top part that need to be fulfilled. This way we can split in cases where proper splitting is not possible. We demonstrate this idea for argumentation frameworks and logic programs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Eng. Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–44. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumann, R.: Splitting an Argumentation Framework. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 40–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumann, R., Brewka, G., Wong, R.: Splitting Argumentation Frameworks: An Empirical Evaluation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set programming at a glance. Commun. ACM 54(12), 92–103 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Mannila, H.: Disjunctive Datalog. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 22(3), 364–418 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Comput. 9(3/4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hao, J., Orlin, J.B.: A faster algorithm for finding the minimum cut in a directed graph. J. Algorithms 17(3), 424–446 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janhunen, T., Oikarinen, E., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Modularity aspects of disjunctive stable models. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 35, 813–857 (2009)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liao, B.S., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a logic program. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.) Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 1994), pp. 23–27. MIT Press (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tarjan, R.: Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing 1(2), 146–160 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turner, H.: Splitting a default theory. In: Clancey, W.J., Weld, D.S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Eighth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI/IAAI), vol. 1, pp. 645–651. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ringo Baumann
    • 1
  • Gerhard Brewka
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Dvořák
    • 2
  • Stefan Woltran
    • 2
  1. 1.Informatics InstituteLeipzig UniversityLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Information SystemsVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations