Abstract
We introduce in \( ASPIC ^+\) languages an interrogation mark ? as a plausibility operator to enhance any defeasible conclusion do 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. As a collateral effect, the application of the Ex Falso principle can be prevented in \( ASPIC ^?\) when the last rule employed in the construction of those arguments with symmetric conflicting conclusions is defeasible. We then show \( ASPIC ^?\) preserves current results on the satisfaction of consistency and logical closure properties.
This research was partly financed by FUNCAP.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Carnielli, W., Marcos, J.: A taxonomy of c-systems. In: Paraconsistency, pp. 24–117. CRC Press, Boca Raton (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)
Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1479–1497 (2011)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)
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. PhD thesis, University of Luxembourg (2012)
Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premisses. Theory Decis. 1(2), 179–217 (1970)
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)
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. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
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
Arieli, O.: Conflict-free and conflict-tolerant semantics for constrained argumentation frameworks. J. Appl. Logic 13(4), 582–604 (2015)
Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Sequent-based logical argumentation. Argum. Comput. 6(1), 73–99 (2015)
Arieli, O., Straßer, C.: Logical argumentation by dynamic proof systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 781, 63–91 (2019)
Borg, A., Straßer, C., Arieli, O.: A generalized proof-theoretic approach to logical argumentation based on hypersequents. Studia Logica 109(1), 167–238 (2021)
Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_11
Ben-Naim, J.: Argumentation-based paraconsistent logics. In: Hernandez, N., Jäschke, R., Croitoru, M. (eds.) ICCS 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8577, pp. 19–24. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08389-6_2
Grooters, D., Prakken, H.: Two aspects of relevance in structured argumentation: minimality and paraconsistency. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 56, 197–245 (2016)
Morris, P.H.: The anomalous extension problem in default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 35(3), 383–399 (1988)
Dung, P., Thang, P., Son, T.C.: On structured argumentation with conditional preferences. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 2792–2800 (2019)
Dung, P., Thang, P.: Fundamental properties of attack relations in structured argumentation with priorities. Artif. Intell. 255, 1–42 (2018)
Dung, P.: An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities. Artif. Intell. 231, 107–150 (2016)
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). A Paraconsistent Approach to Deal with Epistemic Inconsistencies in Argumentation. In: Vejnarová, J., Wilson, N. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12897. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86772-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86772-0_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86771-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86772-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)