Link with Existing Approaches
Chapter
First Online:
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.
References
- Amgoud L (2012) Stable semantics in logic-based argumentation. In: International conference on scalable uncertainty management (SUM), Marburg, pp 58–71Google Scholar
- Amgoud L, Besnard P (2010) A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems. In: International conference on scalable uncertainty management (SUM), Toulouse, pp 42–55Google Scholar
- Amgoud L, Cayrol C (2002) Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J Autom Reason 29(2):125–169MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baroni P, Caminada M, Giacomin M (2011) An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl Eng Rev 26(4):365–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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 640–647Google Scholar
- Brewka G (1989) Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), Detroit, pp 1043–1048Google Scholar
- 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 107–114Google Scholar
- Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77:321–357MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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 11–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nico R (1992) A logic for reasoning with inconsistent knowledge. Artif Intell 57(1):69–103MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Poole D (1988) A logical framework for default reasoning. Artif Intell 36(1):27–47MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rescher N, Manor R (1970) On inference from inconsistent premises. Theory Decis 1:179–219MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© The Author(s) 2013