Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dealing with Inconsistencies in \({ASPIC}^+\)

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Systems (BRACIS 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13653))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 649 Accesses

Abstract

Inconsistencies in argumentation theory have been a recurrent topic in the literature. The \( ASPIC ^+\) being one of the most well know argumentation formalisms is frequently used to deal with inconsistencies. However, the existing approaches consider a limited version of \( ASPIC ^+\). In our work, we managed to deal with inconsistencies in a very general scenario. To do this, we impose in \( ASPIC ^+\) some reasonable conditions to the relations between arguments to adjust how arguments interact with each other. As consequence, we avoid inconsistent arguments interfere with consistent arguments by neutralizing the inconsistent argument. Then we show that under simple conditions, \( ASPIC ^+\) preserves current results on the satisfaction of fundamental properties of consistency and logical closure.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu, Y., Podlaszewski, M.: Implementing crash-resistance and non-interference in logic-based argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 25(2), 303–333 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Prakken, H.: Rethinking the rationality postulates for argumentation-based inference. In: COMMA, pp. 419–430 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heyninck, J., Straßer, C.: Revisiting unrestricted rebut and preferences in structured argumentation. In: IJCAI, pp. 1088–1092 (2017)

    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. Log. 13(4), 582–604 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Sequent-based logical argumentation. Argument 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  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Caminada, M., Carnielli, W., Dunne, P.: Semi-stable semantics. J. Log. Comput. 22(5), 1207–1254 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  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. Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil

    João Carlos Xavier-Junior

  2. Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil

    Ricardo Araújo Rios

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Silva, R., Alcântara, J. (2022). Dealing with Inconsistencies in \({ASPIC}^+\). In: Xavier-Junior, J.C., Rios, R.A. (eds) Intelligent Systems. BRACIS 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13653. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21686-2_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21686-2_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-21685-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-21686-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation