Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resource-Bounded Paraconsistent Inference

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, a new framework for reasoning from inconsistent propositional belief bases is presented. A family of resource-bounded paraconsistent inference relations is introduced. Such inference relations are based on S-3 entailment, an inference relation logically weaker than the classical one and parametrized by a set S of propositional variables. The computational complexity of our relations is identified, and their logical properties are analyzed. Among the strong features of our framework is the fact that tractability is ensured each time |S| is bounded and a limited amount of knowledge is taken into account within the belief base. Furthermore, binary connectives ∧, ∨ behave in a classical manner. Finally, our framework is general enough to encompass several paraconsistent multi-valued logics (including S-3, J 3 and its restrictions), the standard coherence-based approach to inconsistency handling (based on the selection of consistent subbases) and some signed systems for paraconsistent reasoning as specific cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol, On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation frameworks, in: Proc. of UAI'98 (1998) pp. 1–7.

  2. O. Arieli and A. Avron, The value of four values, Artificial Intelligence 102 (1998) 97–141.

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Baral, S. Kraus and J. Minker, Combining multiple knowledge bases, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 3(2) (1991) 208–220.

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. Belnap, A useful four-valued logic, in: Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977) pp. 8–37.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang and H. Prade, Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment, in: Proc. of IJCAI'93 (1993) pp. 640–645.

  6. S. Benferhat, D. Dubois and H. Prade, How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? in: Proc. of IJCAI'95 (1995) pp. 1449–1455.

  7. S. Benferhat, Computing specificity in default reasoning, in: Handbook of DRUMS, Vol. 5 (Kluwer Academic, 2000) pp. 147–177.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ph. Besnard and A. Hunter, Quasi-classical logic: non-trivializable classical reasoning from inconsistent information, in: Proc. of ECSQARU'95, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 946 (Springer, 1995) pp. 44–51.

  9. Ph. Besnard and A. Hunter, Introduction to actual and potential contradictions, in: Handbook of DRUMS, Vol. 2 (Kluwer Academic, 1998) pp. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ph. Besnard and J. Lang, Graded paraconsistency – reasoning with inconsistent and uncertain knowledge, in: Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logics, Studies in Logic and Computation, Vol. 8 (Research Studies Press, 2000) pp. 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ph. Besnard and T. Schaub, Circumscribing inconsistency, in: Proc. of IJCAI'97 (1997) pp. 150–155.

  12. Ph. Besnard and T. Schaub, Signed systems for paraconsistent reasoning, Journal of Automated Reasoning 20 (1998) 191–213.

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Bondarenko, P. Dung, R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni, An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 93(1–2) (1997) 63–101.

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. Brewka, Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning, in: Proc. of IJCAI'89 (1989) pp. 1043–1048.

  15. M. Cadoli and M. Schaerf, On the complexity of entailment in propositional multivalued logics, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 18 (1996) 29–50.

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex, On the complexity of non-monotonic entailment in syntax-based approaches, in: Proc. of ECAI'94 Workshop on Algorithms, Complexity and Commonsense Reasoning (1994).

  17. C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex, Non-monotonic syntax-based entailment: a classification of consequence relations, in: Proc. of ECSQARU'95, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 946 (Springer, 1995) pp. 107–114.

  18. C. Cayrol, M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex and Th. Schiex, Nonmonotonic reasoning: from complexity to algorithms, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 22(3–4) (1998) 207–236.

    Google Scholar 

  19. S. Chopra and R. Parikh, An inconsistency tolerant model for belief representation and belief revision, in: Proc. of IJCAI'99 (1999) pp. 192–197.

  20. S. Coste-Marquis and P. Marquis, Complexity results for paraconsistent inference relations, in: Proc. of KR'02 (2002) pp. 61–72.

  21. J.M. Crawford and D.W. Etherington, A non-deterministic semantics for tractable inference, in: Proc. of AAAI'98 (1998).

  22. J.M. Crawford and B. Kuipers, Towards a theory of access-limited logic for knowledge representation, in: Proc. of KR'89 (1989) pp. 67–78.

  23. N. da Costa, On the theory of inconsistent formal systems, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 15 (1974) 497–510.

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. Dalal, Anytime families of tractable propositional reasoners, in: Proc. of AI&Math'96 (1996) pp. 42–45.

  25. M. Davis, G. Logemann and D. Loveland, A machine program for theorem proving, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 5 (1962) 394–397.

    Google Scholar 

  26. I.M.L. D'Ottaviano and N.C.A. da Costa, Sur un problème de Ja´skowski, Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris 270(A) (1970) 1349–1353.

    Google Scholar 

  27. O. Dubois, P. André, Y. Boufkhad and J. Carlier, SAT versus UNSAT, in: Second DIMACS Challenge, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (American Mathematical Society, 1996) pp. 415–436.

  28. P. Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence 77 (1995) 321–357.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Elvang-Goransson and A. Hunter, Argumentative logics: reasoning from classically inconsistent information, Data and Knowledge Engineering 16 (1995) 125–145.

    Google Scholar 

  30. R.L. Epstein, The Semantic Foundation of Logic, Vol. I: Propositional Logics (Kluwer Academic, 1990).

  31. R. Fagin, J.D. Ullman and M.Y. Vardi, On the semantics of updates in databases, in: Proc. of PODS'83 (1993) pp. 352–355.

  32. M. Finger and R. Wassermann, Tableaux for approximate reasoning, in: Proc. of IJCAI'01 Workshop on Inconsistency in Data and Knowledge (2001).

  33. A.M. Frisch, Inference without chaining, in: Proc. of IJCAI'87 (1987) pp. 515–519.

  34. M. Ginsberg, Counterfactuals, Artificial Intelligence 30 (1986) 35–79.

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. Ginsberg, The computational value of nonmonotonic reasoning, in: Proc. of KR'91 (1991) pp. 262–268.

  36. C. Hewitt, Metacritique of McDermott and the logicist approach, Computational Intelligence 3 (1987).

  37. A. Hunter, Reasoning with contradictory information using quasi-classical logic, Journal of Logic and Computation 10(5) (2000).

  38. D. Kayser, Une étude du “raisonnement par approximation” de Schaerf et Cadoli (in French), Revue d'Intelligence Artificielle 11(4) (1997) 449–461.

    Google Scholar 

  39. S. Konieczny and R. Pino Pérez, On the logic of merging, in: Proc. of KR'98 (1998) pp. 488–498.

  40. S. Konieczny, On the difference between merging knowledge bases and combining them, in: Proc. of KR'00 (2000) pp. 135–144.

  41. S. Kraus, D. Lehmann and M. Magidor, Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics, Artificial Intelligence 44 (1990) 167–207.

    Google Scholar 

  42. H.J. Levesque, A logic of implicit and explicit belief, in: Proc. of AAAI'84 (1984) pp. 198–202.

  43. H.J. Levesque, Knowledge representation and reasoning, Annual Reviews in Computer Science 1 (1986) 255–287.

    Google Scholar 

  44. H.J. Levesque, A knowledge-level account of abduction, in: Proc. of IJCAI'89 (1989) pp. 1061–1067.

  45. F. Lin, Reasoning in the presence of inconsistency, in: Proc. of AAAI'87 (1987) pp. 139–143.

  46. J. Lin, Integration of weighted knowledge bases, Artificial Intelligence 83(2) (1996) 363–378.

    Google Scholar 

  47. P. Marquis and N. Porquet, Computational aspects of quasi-classical entailment, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics (2001) (to appear).

  48. B. Nebel, Belief revision and default reasoning: syntax-based approaches, in: Proc. of KR'89 (1989) pp. 301–311.

  49. B. Nebel, Syntax-based approaches to belief revision, in: Belief Revision, ed. P. Gärdenfors, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 29 (1992) pp. 52–88.

  50. B. Nebel, Base revision operations and schemes: semantics, representation and complexity, in: Proc. of ECAI'94 (1994) pp. 341–345.

  51. B. Nebel, How hard is it to revise a belief base? in: Handbook of DRUMS, Vol. 3 (Kluwer Academic, 1998) pp. 77–145.

    Google Scholar 

  52. C.H. Papadimitriou, Computational Complexity (Addison-Wesley, 1994).

  53. G. Pinkas and R.P. Loui, Reasoning from inconsistency: a taxonomy of principles for resolving conflict, in: Proc. of KR'92 (1992) pp. 709–719.

  54. G. Priest, Reasoning about truth, Artificial Intelligence 39 (1989) 231–244.

    Google Scholar 

  55. G. Priest, Minimally inconsistent LP, Studia Logica 50 (1991) 321–331.

    Google Scholar 

  56. N. Rescher and R. Manor, On inference from inconsistent premises, Theory and Decision 1 (1970) 179–219.

    Google Scholar 

  57. P.Z. Revesz, On the semantics of arbitration, International Journal of Algebra and Computation 7(2) (1997) 133–160.

    Google Scholar 

  58. M. Schaerf and M. Cadoli, Tractable reasoning via approximation, Artificial Intelligence 74(2) (1995) 249–310.

    Google Scholar 

  59. B. Selman and H.A. Kautz, Knowledge compilation and theory approximation, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 43(2) (1996) 193–224.

    Google Scholar 

  60. A. ten Teije and F. van Harmelen, Computing approximate diagnoses by using approximate entailment, in: Proc. of KR'96 (1996) pp. 256–265.

  61. R. Wassermann, On structured belief bases, in: Frontiers in Belief Revision, eds. H. Rott and M. Williams, Applied Logic Series, Vol. 22 (Kluwer Academic, 2001).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CRIL-CNRS/Université d'Artois, rue de l'Université – S.P. 16, F-62307, Lens Cedex, France

    Pierre Marquis & Nadège Porquet

Authors
  1. Pierre Marquis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nadège Porquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marquis, P., Porquet, N. Resource-Bounded Paraconsistent Inference. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 39, 349–384 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026088710874

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026088710874

Search

Navigation