In the current paper, we reexamine the connection between formal argumentation and logic programming from the perspective of semantics. We observe that one particular translation from logic programs to instantiated argumentation (the one described by Wu, Caminada and Gabbay) is able to serve as a basis for describing various equivalences between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics. In particular, we are able to provide a formal connection between regular semantics for logic programming and preferred semantics for formal argumentation. We also show that there exist logic programming semantics (L-stable semantics) that cannot be captured by any abstract argumentation semantics.

No abstract

No 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.

The connection between logic programming and formal argumentation has been studied starting from the landmark 1995 paper of Dung. Subsequent work has identified a standard translation from logic programs to (instantiated) argumentation frameworks, under which pairwise correspondences hold between various logic programming semantics and various formal argumentation semantics. This includes the correspondence between 3-valued stable and complete semantics, between well-founded and grounded semantics and between 2-valued stable (LP) and stable (argumentation) semantics. In the current paper, we show that the existing translation is able to yield the additional correspondence between ideal semantics for logic programming and ideal semantics for formal argumentation. We also show that correspondence does not hold between eager semantics for logic programming and eager semantics for formal argumentation, at least when translating from logic programming to formal argumentation. Overall, the current work should be seen as completing the analysis of correspondences between mainstream admissibility-based argumentation semantics and their logic programming counterparts.