Abstract
Logic-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning with inconsistent information. They consist of a set of arguments, attacks among them and a semantics for the evaluation of arguments. Preferred semantics is favored in the literature since it ensures the existence of extensions (i.e., acceptable sets of arguments), and it guarantees a kind of maximality, accepting thus arguments whenever possible.
This paper proposes the first study on the outcomes under preferred semantics of logic-based argumentation systems that satisfy basic rationality postulates. It focuses on systems that are grounded on Tarskian logics, and delimits the number of preferred extensions they may have. It also characterizes both their extensions and their sets of conclusions that are drawn from knowledge bases. The results are disappointing since they show that in the best case, the preferred extensions of a system are computed from the maximal consistent subbases of the knowledge base under study. In this case, the system is coherent, that is preferred extensions are stable ones. Moreover, we show that both semantics are useless in thic case since they ensure exactly the same result as naive semantics. Apart from this case, the outcomes of argumentation systems are counter-intuitive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. page WL4AI: ECAI Workshop on Weighted Logics for AI (2012)
Amgoud, L.: Stable Semantics in Logic-Based Argumentation. In: Hüllermeier, E., et al. (eds.) SUM 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7520, pp. 58–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: How to infer from inconsisent beliefs without revising? In: IJCAI 1995, pp. 1449–1457 (1995)
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93, 63–101 (1997)
Caminada, M.: On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: AAAI 2005, pp. 608–613 (2005)
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)
Cholvy, L.: Automated Reasoning with Merged Contradictory Information Whose Reliability Depends on Topics. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS, vol. 946, pp. 125–132. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 317–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal 77, 321–357 (1995)
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J.P., Krause, P.: Acceptability of Arguments as Logical Uncertainty. In: Moral, S., Kruse, R., Clarke, E. (eds.) ECSQARU 1993. LNCS, vol. 747, pp. 85–90. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4, 95–138 (2004)
Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence Journal 175(9-10), 1479–1497 (2011)
Governatori, G., Maher, M., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5), 675–702 (2004)
Pearl, J.: System z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to default reasoning. In: TARK 1990, pp. 121–135 (1990)
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence Journal 57, 1–42 (1992)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)
Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premises. Journal of Theory and Decision 1, 179–219 (1970)
Tarski, A.: On Some Fundamental Concepts of Metamathematics. In: Woodger, E.H. (ed.) Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford Uni. Press (1956)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Amgoud, L. (2012). The Outcomes of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems under Preferred Semantics. In: Hüllermeier, E., Link, S., Fober, T., Seeger, B. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7520. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33362-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33362-0_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33361-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33362-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)