On the Equivalence Between Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and Logic Programs

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) are argumentation frameworks where each node is associated with an acceptance condition. This allows us to model different types of dependencies as supports and attacks. Previous studies provided a translation from Normal Logic Programs (NLPs) to ADFs and prove...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:arXiv.org 2019-07
Main Authors: Alcântara, João, Sá, Samy, Acosta-Guadarrama, Juan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Dialectics
Equivalence
Logic programming
Logic programs
Semantics
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) are argumentation frameworks where each node is associated with an acceptance condition. This allows us to model different types of dependencies as supports and attacks. Previous studies provided a translation from Normal Logic Programs (NLPs) to ADFs and proved the stable models semantics for a normal logic program has an equivalent semantics to that of the corresponding ADF. However, these studies failed in identifying a semantics for ADFs equivalent to a three-valued semantics (as partial stable models and well-founded models) for NLPs. In this work, we focus on a fragment of ADFs, called Attacking Dialectical Frameworks (ADF\(^+\)s), and provide a translation from NLPs to ADF\(^+\)s robust enough to guarantee the equivalence between partial stable models, well-founded models, regular models, stable models semantics for NLPs and respectively complete models, grounded models, preferred models, stable models for ADFs. In addition, we define a new semantics for ADF\(^+\)s, called L-stable, and show it is equivalent to the L-stable semantics for NLPs. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.
ISSN:2331-8422