Comparing arguments using preference orderings for argument-based reasoning

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 the paper is to enforce the concept of acceptability by the integration of preference orderings. Pursuing previous work on preference-based argumentation, the authors focus on the definition of preference relations for comparing conflicting arguments. They present a comparative study of several proposals. They then propose techniques for computing and comparing arguments, taking advantage of an assumption-based truth maintenance system (ATMS).

[1]  Anthony Hunter Defeasible Reasoning with Structured Information , 1994, KR.

[2]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  From Non-Monotonic Syntax-Based Entailment to Preference-Based Argumentation , 1995, ECSQARU.

[3]  Paul J. Krause,et al.  Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information , 1993, UAI.

[4]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Default reasoning - causal and conditional theories , 1992 .

[5]  Morten Elvang-Gøransson,et al.  Argumentative Logics: Reasoning with Classically Inconsistent Information , 1995, Data Knowl. Eng..

[6]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Inconsistency Management and Prioritized Syntax-Based Entailment , 1993, IJCAI.

[8]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Management of Preferences in Assumption-Based Reasoning , 1992, IPMU.

[9]  John L. Pollock,et al.  How to Reason Defeasibly , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  Extending the ATMS , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Using the Davis and Putnam Procedure for an Efficient Computation of Preferred Models , 1996, ECAI.

[12]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  An Assumption-Based TMS , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Non-monotonic Syntax-Based Entailment: A Classification of Consequence Relations , 1995, ECSQARU.

[14]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Gadi Pinkas,et al.  Reasoning from Inconsistency: A Taxonomy of Principles for Resolving Conflict , 1992, KR.

[16]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On the Relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment , 1995, IJCAI.

[17]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases , 1993, UAI.