Abstract
We introduce an interrogation mark ? in \( ASPIC ^+\) languages as a plausibility operator to enhance any defeasible conclusion does 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. Then, in the current study, we show \( ASPIC ^?\) satisfy reasonable properties. In particular, we focus on the property that a conflict between two arguments should not interfere with the acceptability of other unrelated arguments. With this purpose in mind, we prove under which conditions the important principles of Non-interference and Crash-Resistance hold in \( ASPIC ^?\).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Carnielli, W., Marcos, J.: A taxonomy of C-systems. In: Paraconsistency, pp. 24–117. CRC Press (2002)
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)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)
Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1479–1497 (2011)
Caminada, M., Modgil, S., Oren, N.: Preferences and unrestricted rebut. Computational Models of Argument (2014)
Grooters, D., Prakken, H.: Combining paraconsistent logic with argumentation. In: COMMA, pp. 301–312 (2014)
Wu, Y.: Between argument and conclusion-argument-based approaches to discussion, inference and uncertainty. Ph.D. thesis, University of Luxembourg (2012)
Wu, Y., Podlaszewski, M.: Implementing crash-resistance and non-interference in logic-based argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 25(2), 303–333 (2015)
Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premisses. Theory Decis. 1(2), 179–217 (1970)
Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. OMMA 144, 121–130 (2006)
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)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
Damásio, C., Moniz Pereira, L.: A survey of paraconsistent semantics for logic programs. In: Besnard, P., Hunter, A. (eds.) Reasoning with Actual and Potential Contradictions. Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol. 2, pp. 241–320. Springer, Cham (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1739-7_8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Silva, R., Alcântara, J. (2021). \( ASPIC ^?\) and the Postulates of Non-interference and Crash-Resistance. In: Britto, A., Valdivia Delgado, K. (eds) Intelligent Systems. BRACIS 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13073. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91702-9_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91702-9_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91701-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91702-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)