Abstract
A semantic tableau method, called an argumentation tableau, that enables the derivation of arguments, is proposed. First, the derivation of arguments for standard propositional and predicate logic is addressed. Next, an extension that enables reasoning with defeasible rules is presented. Finally, reasoning by cases using an argumentation tableau is discussed.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Arguments for inconsistencies cover rebutting attacks.
- 2.
Note the difference between an undercutting argument and an undercutting defeater. The former is an argument for not using a proposition or a defeasible rule, and the latter is a defeasible rule specifying a condition under which another defeasible rule should not be used [16].
- 3.
Note that the goal is not to define a tableau rule for an ‘exclusive or’ but for a standard ‘or’, which can be viewed as describing three mutually exclusive cases.
References
Baader, F., Sattler, U.: An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica 5–40 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013882326814
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168, 162–210 (2005)
Beirlaen, M., Heyninck, J., Straßer, C.: Reasoning by cases in structured argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 989–994. SAC 2017 (2017)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Practical first-order argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 590–595 (2005)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Argumentation based on classical logic. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 133–152. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_7
Beth, E.W.: Formal methods: an introduction to symbolic logic and to the study of effective operations in arithmetic and logic. Synthese library. D. Reidel Publ. Comp
Bodanza, G.: Disjunctions and specificity in suppositional defeasible argumentation. Logic J. IGPL 10(1), 23–49 (2002)
Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144. IOS Press (2006)
Cramer, M., vab der Torre, L.: SCF2 - an argumentation semantics for rational human judgments on argument acceptability. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Dynamics of Knowledge and Belief (DKB-2019) and the 7th Workshop KI & Kognition (KIK 2019), pp. 24–35 (2019)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_10
Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171, 642–674 (2007)
Dvořák, W., Gaggl, S.A.: Stage semantics and the SCC-recursive schema for argumentation semantics. J. Logic Comput. 26(4), 1149–1202 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exu006
Massacci, F.: Single step tableaux for modal logics: computational properties, complexity and methodology. J. Autom. Reason. 24, 319–364 (2000)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC\(^+\) framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput. 5, 31–62 (2014)
Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 11, 481–518 (1987)
Pollock, J.L.: A theory of defeasible reasoning. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 6, 33–54 (1991)
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artif. Intell. 57, 1–42 (1992)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: The Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 219–318. Springer, Netherlands (2002)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
Roos, N.: A preference logic for non-monotonic reasoning. Technical Report 88–94, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics (1988)
Roos, N.: Preference logic: a logic for reasoning with inconsistent knowledge. Technical Report 89–53, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics (1989)
Roos, N.: A logic for reasoning with inconsistent knowledge. Artif. Intell 57, 69–103 (1992)
Roos, N.: On resolving conflicts between arguments. Technical report, TR-CTIT-97-37 Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, Enschede (1997)
Roos, N.: On resolving conflicts between arguments. Comput. Intell. 16, 469–497 (2000)
Roos, N.: Preferential model and argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2010) (2010)
Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif. Intell. 53, 125–157 (1992)
Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argument Comput. 5(1), 89–117 (2014)
Toulmin, S.: The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press (1958)
Verheij, B.: Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In: In Proceedings of the Biannual International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (FAPR) Workshop, pp. 357–368 (1996)
Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artif. Intell 90, 225–279 (1997)
Yun, B., Oren, N., Croitoru, M.: Efficient construction of structured argumentation systems. In: Prakken, H., Bistarelli, S., Santini, F., Taticchi, C. (eds.) COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 326, pp. 411–418. IOS Press (2020). https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200525
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
Roos, N. (2021). A Semantic Tableau Method for Argument Construction. In: Baratchi, M., Cao, L., Kosters, W.A., Lijffijt, J., van Rijn, J.N., Takes, F.W. (eds) Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. BNAIC/Benelearn 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1398. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76640-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76640-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-76639-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-76640-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)