Abstract
In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the weaknesses of logical argumentation reported in the literature and to prove several desirable properties, stated in terms of rationality postulates. For this, we take the relevance logic RM as the deductive base of our formalism. This logic is regarded as “by far the best understood of the Anderson-Belnap style systems” (Dunn and Restall, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 6). It has a clear semantics in terms of Sugihara matrices, as well as sound and complete Hilbert- and Gentzen-type proof systems. The latter are defined by hypersequents and admit cut elimination. We show that hypersequent-based argumentation yields a robust defeasible variant of RM with many desirable properties (e.g., rationality postulates and crash-resistance).
The first two authors are supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant 817/15).
The first and the third author are supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the German Ministry for Education and Research.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Set signs in arguments are omitted.
- 2.
See [4] for further advantages of this approach.
- 3.
By requiring that both the attacking and the attacked argument should be in \(\text {Arg}_\mathsf{L}(\mathcal {S})\) we prevent “irrelevant attacks”, that is: situations in which, e.g., \(\lnot p\Rightarrow \lnot p\) attacks \(p\Rightarrow p\) (by Undercut), although \(\mathcal {S}= \{p\}\).
- 4.
It is well-known (see [16]) that the grounded extension of a framework is unique.
- 5.
This follows since any attacker of \(q\Rightarrow q\) has an inconsistent support.
- 6.
The common, intuitive interpretation of the sign “\(\mid \)” is disjunction.
- 7.
- 8.
Unlike R, RM does satisfy the mingle axiom \(\phi \supset (\phi \supset \phi )\).
- 9.
Since a sequent is a particular case of a hypersequent and hypersequent calculi generalize sequent calculi, arguments in the sense of the previous sections are particular cases of the arguments according to the new definition.
- 10.
Intuitively, this is so due to the possibility of splitting hypersequents into different components. A formal justification will be given in the next subsection.
- 11.
Where free arguments are those arguments that are based only on premises that are not involved in minimally inconsistent subsets of \(\mathcal {S}\) (see Definition 10).
- 12.
Note that if \(\mathcal {T}\) is consistent, then so are \(\mathsf{CN}_\mathsf{L}(\mathcal {T})\) and \(\mathcal {T}'\) for every \(\mathcal {T}'\subseteq \mathcal {T}\). If \(\mathcal {T}\) is inconsistent, then so is every superset of \(\mathcal {T}\).
References
Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 55(9), 2028–2048 (2014)
Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks. J. Appl. Non-Class. Logics 23(3), 229–267 (2013)
Anderson, A., Belnap, N.: Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, vol. 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1975)
Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Sequent-based logical argumentation. Argum. Comput. 6(1), 73–99 (2015)
Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Argumentative approaches to reasoning with maximal consistency. In: Proceedings of KR 2016, pp. 509–512. AAAI Press (2016)
Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Deductive argumentation by enhanced sequent calculi and dynamic derivations. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 323, 21–37 (2016)
Avron, A.: A constructive analysis of RM. J. Symb. Logic 52(4), 939–951 (1987)
Avron, A.: The method of hypersequents in the proof theory of propositional non-classical logics. In: Logic: Foundations to Applications, pp. 1–32. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford (1996)
Avron, A.: \(\mathbf{RM}\) and its nice properties. In: Bimbó, K. (ed.) J. Michael Dunn on Information Based Logics. OCL, vol. 8, pp. 15–43. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29300-4_2
Batens, D.: A universal logic approach to adaptive logics. Log. Univers. 1(1), 221–242 (2007)
Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10), 619–641 (2007)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5), 286–310 (2007)
Caminada, M., Carnielli, W., Dunne, P.: Semi-stable semantics. J. Logic Comput. 22(5), 1207–1254 (2011)
Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1443–1448 (1995)
Dung, P.M.: 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)
Dunn, M., Meyer, R.: Algebraic completeness results for Dummett’s LC and its extensions. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 17, 225–230 (1971)
Dunn, M., Restall, G.: Relevance logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 6, pp. 1–136. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn (2002)
Gentzen, G.: Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen I, II. Mathematische Zeitschrift 39, 176–210, 405–431 (1934)
Makinson, D.: Bridges between classical and nonmonotonic logic. Logic J. IGPL 11(1), 69–96 (2003)
Metcalfe, G., Olivetti, N., Gabbay, D.: Fundamental logics. In: Metcalfe, G., Olivetti, N., Gabbay, D. (eds.) Proof Theory for Fuzzy Logics, vol. 36, pp. 137–175. Springer, Dordrecht (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9409-5_6
Mints, G.: Lewis’ systems and system T (1965–1973). In: Feys, R. (ed.) “Modal Logic” (Russian Translation), pp. 422–501. Nauka (1974)
Pollock, J.: How to reason defeasibly. Artif. Intell. 57(1), 1–42 (1992)
Pottinger, G.: Uniform, cut-free formulations of T, S4 and S5. J. Symb. Logic 48, 900–901 (1983). Abstract
Prakken, H.: Two approaches to the formalisation of defeasible deontic reasoning. Stud. Logica. 57(1), 73–90 (1996)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
Simari, G., Loui, R.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif. Intell. 53(2–3), 125–157 (1992)
Straßer, C.: Adaptive Logics for Defeasible Reasoning: Applications in Argumentation. Trends in Logic, vol. 38. Normative Reasoning and Default Reasoning. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00792-2
Straßer, C., Arieli, O.: Normative reasoning by sequent-based argumentation. J. Logic Comput. (forthcoming). https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exv050
Wu, Y., Podlaszewski, M.: Implementing crash-resistance and non-interference in logic-based argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 25(2), 303–333 (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Borg, A., Arieli, O., Straßer, C. (2018). Hypersequent-Based Argumentation: An Instantiation in the Relevance Logic RM . In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds) Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10757. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75553-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75553-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75552-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75553-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)