Abstract
Many important works in inconsistency management have been developed in AI literature in the last three decades. In this chapter we revisit some of the most influential works in this area and analyze how our general framework relates to them, showing in some cases how the proposals correspond to special cases of our framework by defining adequate weakening mechanisms and preference relations.
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
Notes
- 1.
An AS is finite iff each argument is attacked by a finite number of arguments. It is infinite otherwise.
References
Amgoud L (2012) Stable semantics in logic-based argumentation. In: International conference on scalable uncertainty management (SUM), Marburg, pp 58–71
Amgoud L, Besnard P (2010) A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems. In: International conference on scalable uncertainty management (SUM), Toulouse, pp 42–55
Amgoud L, Cayrol C (2002) Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J Autom Reason 29(2):125–169
Baroni P, Caminada M, Giacomin M (2011) An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl Eng Rev 26(4):365–410
Benferhat S, Cayrol C, Dubois D, Lang J, Prade H (1993) Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), Chambéry, pp 640–647
Brewka G (1989) Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), Detroit, pp 1043–1048
Cayrol C, Lagasquie-Schiex M (1995) Non-monotonic syntax-based entailment: a classification of consequence relations. In: Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning and uncertainty (ECSQARU), Fribourg, pp 107–114
Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77:321–357
Hunter A (1998) Paraconsistent logics. In: Besnard P, Gabbay DM, Hunter A, Smets P (eds) Handbook of defeasible reasoning and uncertainty management systems, volume 2: reasoning with actual and potential contradictions, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 11–36
Nico R (1992) A logic for reasoning with inconsistent knowledge. Artif Intell 57(1):69–103
Poole D (1988) A logical framework for default reasoning. Artif Intell 36(1):27–47
Rescher N, Manor R (1970) On inference from inconsistent premises. Theory Decis 1:179–219
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martinez, M.V., Molinaro, C., Subrahmanian, V.S., Amgoud, L. (2013). Link with Existing Approaches. In: A General Framework for Reasoning On Inconsistency. SpringerBriefs in Computer Science. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6750-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6750-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6749-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6750-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)