Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Paraconsistent Approach to Deal with Epistemic Inconsistencies in Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 12897))

  • 707 Accesses

Abstract

We introduce in \( ASPIC ^+\) languages an interrogation mark ? as a plausibility operator to enhance any defeasible conclusion do not have the same status as an irrefutable one. The resulting framework, dubbed \( ASPIC ^?\), is tailored to make a distinction between strong inconsistencies and weak inconsistencies. The aim is to avoid the former and to tolerate the latter. This means the extensions obtained from the \( ASPIC ^?\) framework are free of strong conflicts, but tolerant to weak conflicts. As a collateral effect, the application of the Ex Falso principle can be prevented in \( ASPIC ^?\) when the last rule employed in the construction of those arguments with symmetric conflicting conclusions is defeasible. We then show \( ASPIC ^?\) preserves current results on the satisfaction of consistency and logical closure properties.

This research was partly financed by FUNCAP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Carnielli, W., Marcos, J.: A taxonomy of c-systems. In: Paraconsistency, pp. 24–117. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pequeno, T., Buchsbaum, A.: The logic of epistemic inconsistency. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 453–460 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1479–1497 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Caminada, M., Modgil, S., Oren, N.: Preferences and unrestricted rebut. Computational Models of Argument (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grooters, D., Prakken, H.: Combining paraconsistent logic with argumentation. In COMMA, pp. 301–312 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wu, Y.: Between argument and conclusion-argument-based approaches to discussion, inference and uncertainty. PhD thesis, University of Luxembourg (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premisses. Theory Decis. 1(2), 179–217 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Arieli, O.: Conflict-tolerant semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: del Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7519, pp. 28–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33353-8_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Arieli, O.: Conflict-free and conflict-tolerant semantics for constrained argumentation frameworks. J. Appl. Logic 13(4), 582–604 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Sequent-based logical argumentation. Argum. Comput. 6(1), 73–99 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Logical argumentation by dynamic proof systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 781, 63–91 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Borg, A., Straßer, C., Arieli, O.: A generalized proof-theoretic approach to logical argumentation based on hypersequents. Studia Logica 109(1), 167–238 (2021)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Ben-Naim, J.: Argumentation-based paraconsistent logics. In: Hernandez, N., Jäschke, R., Croitoru, M. (eds.) ICCS 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8577, pp. 19–24. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08389-6_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Grooters, D., Prakken, H.: Two aspects of relevance in structured argumentation: minimality and paraconsistency. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 56, 197–245 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Morris, P.H.: The anomalous extension problem in default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 35(3), 383–399 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Dung, P., Thang, P., Son, T.C.: On structured argumentation with conditional preferences. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 2792–2800 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dung, P., Thang, P.: Fundamental properties of attack relations in structured argumentation with priorities. Artif. Intell. 255, 1–42 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Dung, P.: An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities. Artif. Intell. 231, 107–150 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil

    Rafael Silva & João Alcântara

Authors
  1. Rafael Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João Alcântara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Silva .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Information Theory and Automation, Prague, Czech Republic

    Jiřina Vejnarová

  2. Insight Centre for Data Analytics, School of Computer Science and IT University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Nic Wilson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Silva, R., Alcântara, J. (2021). A Paraconsistent Approach to Deal with Epistemic Inconsistencies in Argumentation. In: Vejnarová, J., Wilson, N. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12897. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86772-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86772-0_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86771-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86772-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation