Handling Inconsistency with Preference-Based Argumentation

  • Leila Amgoud
  • Srdjan Vesic
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6379)


Argumentation is a promising approach for handling inconsistent knowledge bases, based on the justification of plausible conclusions by arguments. Due to inconsistency, arguments may be attacked by counterarguments. The problem is thus to evaluate the arguments in order to select the most acceptable ones.

The aim of this paper is to make a bridge between the argumentation-based and the coherence-based approaches for handling inconsistency. We are particularly interested by the case where priorities between the formulas of an inconsistent knowledge base are available. For that purpose, we will use the rich preference-based argumentation framework (PAF) we have proposed in an earlier work. A rich PAF has two main advantages: i) it overcomes the limits of existing PAFs, and ii) it encodes two different roles of preferences between arguments (handling critical attacks and refining the evaluation of arguments). We show that there exist full correspondences between particular cases of these PAF and two well known coherence-based approaches, namely the preferred sub-theories and the democratic as well.


Knowledge Base Argumentation Framework Attack Relation Stable Extension Critical Attack 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: On the role of preferences in argumentation frameworks. Technical report, IRIT–Paul Sabatier University (May 2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 411–419 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1043–1048 (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cayrol, C., Royer, V., Saurel, C.: Management of preferences in assumption-based reasoning. In: Valverde, L., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R. (eds.) IPMU 1992. LNCS, vol. 682, pp. 13–22. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premises. Journal of Theory and decision 1, 179–219 (1970)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leila Amgoud
    • 1
  • Srdjan Vesic
    • 1
  1. 1.IRIT-CNRSToulouse Cedex 4France

Personalised recommendations