Abstract
We briefly discuss and compare two frameworks for reasoning with inconsistent belief bases: argumentation systems, based on the construction and selection of acceptable arguments in favor of a conclusion, and syntax-based approaches to non-monotonic entailment, based on the selection of preferred consistent subbases. In the case of a flat belief base (i.e. without any priority between its elements), we show that most of the argument-based inference relations can be exactly restated in the framework of syntax-based entailment. Then, taking advantage of the modelling of prioritized syntax-based entailment, we propose a methodological approach to the integration of preference orderings in argumentation frameworks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang, H. Prade. Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. IJCAI'93, 640–645.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade. Argumentative Inference in Uncertain and Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. UAI'93, 411–419.
S. Brass. On the semantics of supernormal defaults. IJCAI'93, 578–583.
G. Brewka. Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. IJCAI'89, 1043–1048.
C. Cayrol. Reasoning from inconsistent belief bases: On the relation between Argumentation and Coherence-Based Non-monotonic Entailment. Research Report IRIT, n∘ 95/09/R, April 1995.
C. Cayrol, M.C. Lagasquie-Schiex. On the complexity of non-monotonic entailment in syntax-based approaches. Proc. ECAI-94 Workshop on Algorithms, Complexity and Commonsense Reasoning.
C. Cayrol, M.C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Non-monotonic Syntax-Based Entailment: A Classification of Consequence Relations. ECSQARU'95, in this volume.
C. Cayrol, V. Royer, C. Saurel. Management of preferences in Assumption-Based Reasoning. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (B. Bouchon-Meunier, L. Valverde, R.Y. Yager Eds.), Springer Verlag, Vol. 682, 13–22, 1993.
P.M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non monotonic reasoning and logic programming. IJCAI'93, 852–857.
M. Elvang-Goransson, J. Fox, P. Krause. Acceptability of arguments as “logical uncertainty”. Proc. ECSQARU'93, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer Verlag ed.), Vol. 747, 85–90, 1993.
M. Elvang-Goransson, J. Fox, P. Krause. Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. UAI'93, 114–121.
H. Geffner. Default Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Theories. MIT Press, 1992.
A. Hunter. Defeasible reasoning with structured information. KR'94, 281–292.
F. Lin, Y. Shoham. Argument Systems: An uniform basis for non-monotonic reasoning. KR'89, 245–255.
B. Nebel. Belief revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax-based approaches. KR'91, 417–428.
G. Pinkas, R.P. Loui. Reasoning from inconsistency: a taxonomy of principles for resolving conflicts. KR'92, 709–719.
G.R. Simari, R.P. Loui. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53, 125–157, 1992.
G. Vreeswijk. The feasibility of Defeat in Defeasible Reasoning. KR'91, 526–534.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cayrol, C. (1995). From non-monotonic syntax-based entailment to preference-based argumentation. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty. ECSQARU 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 946. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60112-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60112-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-60112-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49438-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive