Well-Founded Argumentation Semantics for Extended Logic Programming

TL;DR

This paper introduces an argumentation semantics for extended logic programming, demonstrating its equivalence to the well-founded semantics with explicit negation, and compares it to other argumentation frameworks.

Contribution

It presents a new argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and a dialectical proof theory, establishing equivalence with well-founded semantics and comparing with existing semantics.

Findings

Semantic equivalence with well-founded semantics

A general dialectical proof theory for argumentation semantics

Comparison with Dung, Prakken, and Sartor semantics

Abstract

This paper defines an argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and shows its equivalence to the well-founded semantics with explicit negation. We set up a general framework in which we extensively compare this semantics to other argumentation semantics, including those of Dung, and Prakken and Sartor. We present a general dialectical proof theory for these argumentation semantics.