Abstract
Argument-based reasoning is a promising approach to handle inconsistent belief bases. The basic idea is to justify each plausible conclusion by acceptable arguments. The purpose of this paper is to enforce the concept of acceptability by the integration of preference orderings. Pursuing previous work on the principles of preference-based argumentation, we focus here on the definition of new acceptability classes of arguments.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol. Etude comparative de relations de préférence entre arguments: Calcul avec un ATMS. Tech. Report no96-33-R, IRIT, Univ. Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, Sept. 96.
L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol. Intégration de préférences dans le raisonnement argumentatif. Tech. Report no97-04-R, IRIT, Univ. Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, Fev. 97.
L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol, D. Le Berre. Comparing Arguments using Preference Orderings for Argument-based Reasoning. Proc. ICTAI'96, 400–403.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade. Argumentative Inference in Uncertain and Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. Proc. 9° Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 411–419, 1993.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade. How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? Proc. IJCAI'95, 1449–1455.
C. Cayrol. On the relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-based Entailment. Proc. IJCAI'95, 1443–1448.
C. Cayrol. From Non-monotonic Syntax-based Entailment to Preference-based Argumentation. In: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (C. Froidevaux, J. Kohlas Eds.), LNAI 946, Springer Verlag, 99–106, 1995.
C. Cayrol, M.C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Non-monotonic Syntax-Based Entailment: A Classification of Consequence Relations. In: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (C. Froidevaux, J. Kohlas Eds.), LNAI 946, Springer Verlag, 107–114, 1995.
C. Cayrol, V. Royer, C. Saurel. Management of preferences in Assumption-Based Reasoning. In: Advanced Methods in Artificial Intelligence (B. Bouchon-Meunier, L. Valverde, R.Y. Yager Eds.), LNCS 682, Springer Verlag, 13–22, 1993.
P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. Proc. IJCAI'93, 852–857.
P.M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77: 321–357, 1995.
M. Elvang-Goransson, J. Fox, P. Krause. Acceptability of arguments as “logical uncertainty”. Proc. ECSQARU'93, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, Vol. 747, 85–90.
M. Elvang-Goransson, A. Hunter. Argumentative logics: Reasoning with classically inconsistent information. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 16: 125–145, 1995.
A. Hunter. Defeasible reasoning with structured information. Proc. KR'94, 281–292.
J.L. Pollock. How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence, 57: 1–42, 1992.
H. Prakken, G. Sartor. A System for Defeasible Argumentation, with Defeasible Priorities. Proc. FAPR'96, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag, Vol.1085, 510–524.
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. Proc. KR'91, 526–534.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C. (1997). Integrating preference orderings into argument-based reasoning. In: Gabbay, D.M., Kruse, R., Nonnengart, A., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning. FAPR ECSQARU 1997 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1244. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035620
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035620
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63095-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69129-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive