Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks - Archive ouverte HAL Accéder directement au contenu
Article Dans Une Revue Journal of Automated Reasoning Année : 2002

Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks

Résumé

Argumentation is a promising approach to handle inconsistent knowledge bases, based on the justification of plausible conclusions by arguments. Due to inconsistency, arguments may be defeated by counterarguments (or defeaters). The problem is thus to select the most acceptable arguments. In this paper we investigate preference-based acceptability. The basic idea is to accept undefeated arguments and also arguments which are preferred to their defeaters. We say that these arguments defend themselves against their defeaters. We define argumentation frameworks based on that preference-based acceptability. Finally, we study associated inference relations for reasoning with inconsistent knowledge bases.

Dates et versions

hal-04329679 , version 1 (07-12-2023)

Identifiants

Citer

Leila Amgoud, Claudette Cayrol. Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2002, 29 (2), pp.125--169. ⟨10.1023/A:1021603608656⟩. ⟨hal-04329679⟩
12 Consultations
0 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More