Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A review of the relations between logical argumentation and reasoning with maximal consistency

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a survey of some recent results relating Dung-style semantics for different types of logical argumentation frameworks and several forms of reasoning with maximally consistent sets (MCS) of premises. The related formalsims are also examined with respect to some rationality postulates and are carried on to corresponding proof systems for non-monotonic reasoning.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 55(9), 2028–2048 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In: Proceedings of the SUM’09, LNCS 5785, pp 12–27. Springer (2009)

  3. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of the SUM’10, LNCS 6379, pp 42–55. Springer (2010)

  4. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 23(3), 229–267 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reason. 29(2), 125–169 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Handling inconsistency with preference-based argumentation. In: Proceedings SUM’10, pp 56–69. Springer (2010)

  7. Arieli, O., Borg, A., Straßer, C.: Prioritized sequent-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS’18, pp 1105–1113. ACM (2018)

  8. Arieli, O., Borg, A., Straßer, C.: Reasoning with maximal consistency by argumentative approaches. J. Log. Comput. 28(7), 1523–1563 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Arieli, O., Borg, A., Straßer, C.: A proof theoretic perspective of logical argumentation. submitted (2019)

  10. Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Dynamic derivations for sequent-based logical argumentation. In: Proceedings of the COMMA’14, vol. 266 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp 89–100. IOS Press (2014)

  11. Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Sequent-based logical argumentation. Journal of Argument and Computation 6(1), 73–99 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Deductive argumentation by enhanced sequent calculi and dynamic derivations. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 323, 21–37 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Logical argumentation by dynamic proof systems. Theoretical Computer Science, in press (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2019.02.019) (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Asenjo, F.G.: A calculus of antinomies. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 7, 103–106 (1966)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 (1996)

  16. Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J.: Combining multiple knowledge bases. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 3(2), 208–220 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: Abstract argumentation frameworks and their semantics. In: Baroni, P., Gabay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp 159–236. College Publications (2018)

  19. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics for abstract argumentation systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simary, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp 25–44 (2009)

  20. Beirlaen, M., Heyninck, J., Pardo, P., Straßer, C.: Argument strength in formal argumentation. Journal of Applied Logics-IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications 5(3), 629–675 (2018)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Representing default rules in possibilistic logic. In: Proceedings of the KR’92, pp 673–684 (1992)

  22. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: A local approach to reasoning under incosistency in stratified knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the ECSQARU’95, LNCS 946, pp 36–43. Springer (1995)

  23. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: a comparative study part 1: the flat case. Stud. Logica. 58(1), 17–45 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Besnard, P., García, A., Hunter, A., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., Simari, G., Toni, F.: Introduction to structured argumentation. Argument & Computation 5(1), 1–4 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. J. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Argumentation based on classical logic. In: Rahwan, I., Simary, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in artificial intelligence, pp 133–152. Springer (2009)

  27. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A review of argumentation based on deductive arguments. In: Baroni, P., Gabay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp 437–484. College Publications (2018)

  28. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. J. Artif. Intell. 93(1), 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Borg, A.: Equipping sequent-based argumentation with defeasible assumptions. In: Proceedings of the COMMA’18, vol. 305 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press (2018)

  30. Borg, A., Arieli, O.: Hypersequential argumentation frameworks: an instantiation in the modal logic S5. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS’18, pp 1097–1104. ACM (2018)

  31. Borg, A., Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Hypersequent-based argumentation: an instantiation in the relevance logic RM. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the TAFA’17, LNCS 10757, pp 17–34. Springer (2017)

  32. Borg, A., Straßer, C., Arieli, O.: A generalized proof-theoretic approach to structured argumentation by hypersequent calculi. Submitted (2019)

  33. Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Sridharan, N.S. (ed.) Proceedings of the IJCAI’89, pp 1043–1048. Morgan Kaufmann (1989)

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Caminada, M., Modgil, S., Oren, N.: Preferences and unrestricted rebut. In: Proceedings of the COMMA’14, pp 209–220. IOS Press (2014)

  36. Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: Proceedings IJCAI’95, pp 1443–1448. Morgan Kaufmann (1995)

  37. Čyras, K., Toni, F.: Non-monotonic inference properties for assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the TAFA’15, pp 92–111. Springer (2015)

  38. D’Agostino, M., Modgil, S.: Classical logic, argumentation and dialectic. Artif. Intell. 262, 15–51 (2018)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. D’Agostino, M., Modgil, S.: A study of argumentative characterisations of preferred subtheories. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI’18, pp 1788–1794 (2018)

  40. Dauphin, J., Cramer, M.: Aspic-end: structured argumentation with explanations and natural deduction. In: Proceedings of the TAFA’17, pp 51–66. Springer (2017)

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. 170(2), 114–159 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P., Fox, J.: Acceptability of arguments as ‘logical uncertainty’. In: Proceedings of the ECSQARU’93, pp 85–90. Springer (1993)

  44. García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Gärdenfors, P., Rott, H.: Belief revision. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 4, pp 35–132. Oxford University Press (1995)

  46. Gentzen, G.: Investigations into logical deduction. In: Szabo, M.E. (ed.) German. An English Translation Appears in ‘The Collected Works of Gerhard Gentzen’. North-Holland (1969)

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Heyninck, J., Arieli, O.: On the semantics of simple contrapositive assumption-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the COMMA’18, vol. 305 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press (2018)

  49. Heyninck, J., Arieli, O.: Simple contrapositive assumption-based frameworks. Accepted to LPNMR’19 (extended abstract in AAMAS’19) (2019)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Heyninck, J., Straßer, C.: Relations between assumption-based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the NMR’16, pp 65–76 (2016)

  51. Heyninck, J., Straßer, C.: Revisiting unrestricted rebut and preferences in structured argumentation. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI’17, pp 1088–1092. AAAI Press (2017)

  52. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Preference in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the COMMA’18, vol. 305 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press (2018)

  53. Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Vesic, S.: New inference relations from maximal consistent subsets. In: Proceedings of the KR’18, pp 649–650. AAAI Press (2018)

  54. Konieczny, S., Pino Pérez, R.: Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. Log. Comput. 12(5), 773–808 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Lin, J.: Integration of weighted knowledge bases. J. Artif. Intell. 83(2), 363–378 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  56. Malouf, R.: Maximal consistent subsets. Comput. Linguist. 33(2), 153–160 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument and Computation 5(1), 31–62 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pigozzi, G., Tsoukias, A., Viappiani, P.: Preferences in artificial intelligence. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 77(3-4), 361–401 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Pollock, J.: How to reason defeasibly. J. Artif. Intell. 57(1), 1–42 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Prakken, H.: Historical overview of formal argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Gabay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp 75–143. College Publications (2018)

  63. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosochical Logic 14, pp 219–318. Kluwer (2002)

  64. Priest, G.: Logic of paradox. J. Philos. Log. 8, 219–241 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Priest, G.: Reasoning about truth. J. Artif. Intell. 39, 231–244 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Simari, G., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. J. Artif. Intell. 53(2–3), 125–157 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Straßer, C., Arieli, O.: Sequent-based argumentation for normative reasoning. In: Proceedings of the DEON’14, LNCS 8554. An extended version will appear in the Journal of Logic and Computation (https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exv050), pp 224–240. Springer (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Thimm, M., Wallner, J.P.: Some complexity results on inconsistency measurement. In: Proceedings of the KR’16, pp 114–124 (2016)

  70. Tonim, F.: Assumption-based argumentation for epistemic and practical reasoning. Computable Models of the Law, Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies 4884, 185–202 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argument and Computation 5(1), 89–117 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Vesic, S.: Identifying the class of maxi-consistent operators in argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 47, 71–93 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  73. Vesic, S., van der Torre, L.: Beyond maxi-consistent argumentation operators. In: Proceedings of the JELIA’12, LNCS 7519, pp 424–436. Springer (2012)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Christian Straßer and the anonymous reviewers for many comments and helpful suggestions. The work on this paper is supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No.817/15). AnneMarie Borg and Jesse Heyninck are also supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the German Ministry for Education and Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science, The Academic College of Tel-Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Ofer Arieli

  2. Institute of Philosophy II, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    AnneMarie Borg & Jesse Heyninck

Authors
  1. Ofer Arieli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. AnneMarie Borg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesse Heyninck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ofer Arieli.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arieli, O., Borg, A. & Heyninck, J. A review of the relations between logical argumentation and reasoning with maximal consistency. Ann Math Artif Intell 87, 187–226 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09629-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09629-7

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Search

Navigation