KR2022Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and ReasoningProceedings of the 19th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Haifa, Israel. July 31–August 5, 2022.

Edited by

ISSN: 2334-1033
ISBN: 978-1-956792-01-0

Sponsored by
Published by

Copyright © 2022 International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization

Automating Reasoning with Standpoint Logic via Nested Sequents

  1. Tim S. Lyon(Technische Universität Dresden)
  2. Lucía Gómez Álvarez(Technische Universität Dresden)


  1. KR and autonomous agents and multi-agent systems
  2. Ontology-based data access, integration, and exchange
  3. Uncertainty, vagueness, many-valued and fuzzy logics
  4. Explainable AI


Standpoint logic is a recently proposed formalism in the context of knowledge integration, which advocates a multi-perspective approach permitting reasoning with a selection of diverse and possibly conflicting standpoints rather than forcing their unification. In this paper, we introduce nested sequent calculi for propositional standpoint logics---proof systems that manipulate trees whose nodes are multisets of formulae---and show how to automate standpoint reasoning by means of non-deterministic proof-search algorithms. To obtain worst-case complexity-optimal proof-search, we introduce a novel technique in the context of nested sequents, referred to as "coloring," which consists of taking a formula as input, guessing a certain coloring of its subformulae, and then running proof-search in a nested sequent calculus on the colored input. Our technique lets us decide the validity of standpoint formulae in CoNP since proof-search only produces a partial proof relative to each permitted coloring of the input. We show how all partial proofs can be fused together to construct a complete proof when the input is valid, and how certain partial proofs can be transformed into a counter-model when the input is invalid. These "certificates" (i.e. proofs and counter-models) serve as explanations of the (in)validity of the input.