Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks

1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C. and Le Berre, D.: Comparing arguments using preference orderings for argument-based reasoning, in Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI'96, 1996, pp. 400-403.

2. Amgoud, L. and Cayrol, C.: Integrating preference orderings into argument-based reasoning, in Proc. of the First International Joint Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, ECSQARU-FAPR'97, 1997, pp. 159-170.

3. Amgoud, L. and Cayrol, C.: A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments, in Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI), to appear in 2002.

4. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D. and Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases, in Proc. of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI'93, 1993, pp. 411-419.

5. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D. and Prade, H.: How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising, in Proc. of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'95, 1995, pp. 1449-1455.

6. Bibel, W.: Methods of automated reasoning, in Fundamentals in Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 232, 1985.

7. Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning, in Proc. of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'89, 1989, pp. 1043-1048.

8. Brewka, G.: Reasoning about priorities in default logic, in Proc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'94, 1994, pp. 940-945.

9. Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment, in Proc. of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'95, 1995, pp. 1443-1448.

10. Cayrol, C.: From non-monotonic syntax-based entailment to preference-based argumentation, in Proc. of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning under Uncertainty, ECSQARU'95, 1995, pp. 99-106.

11. Cholvy, L.: Automated reasoning with merged contradictory information whose reliability depends on topics, in Proc. of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning under Uncertainty, ECSQARU'95, 1995, pp. 125-132.

12. Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C.: Non-monotonic syntax-based entailment: A classification of consequence relations, in Proc. of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning under Uncertainty, ECSQARU'95, 1995, pp. 107-114.

13. Cayrol, C., Royer, V. and Saurel, C.: Management of preferences in assumption-based reasoning, in Advanced Methods in Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 682, Springer-Verlag, 1993, pp. 13-22.

    Google Scholar 

14. Dung, P. M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming, in Proc. of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'93, 1993, pp. 852-857.

15. Dung, P. M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence 77(1995), 321-357.

    Google Scholar 

16. Elvang-Goransson, M., Fox, J. and Krause, P.: Acceptability of arguments as “logical uncertainty”, in Proc. of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning under Uncertainty, ECSQARU'93, 1993, pp. 85-90.

17. Elvang-Goransson, M. and Hunter, A.: Argumentative logics: Reasoning with classically inconsistent information, Data & Knowledge Engineering 16(1995), 125-145.

    Google Scholar 

18. Gabbay, D. M. and Hunter, A.: Making inconsistency respectable: A logical framework for inconsistency in reasoning, in Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence Research, Lecture Notes in Artif. Intell. 535, 1991, pp. 19-32.

    Google Scholar 

19. Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D.: Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations, Artificial Intelligence 65(1994), 197-245.

    Google Scholar 

20. Hunter, A.: Defeasible reasoning with structured information, in Proc. of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'94, 1994, pp. 281-292.

21. De Kleer, J.: Using crude probability estimates to guide diagnosis, Artificial Intelligence 45(1990), 381-391.

    Google Scholar 

22. De Kleer, J. and Williams, B. C.: Diagnosing multiple faults, Artificial Intelligence 32(1987), 97-130.

    Google Scholar 

23. Pearl, J.: System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to default reasoning, in Proc. of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, TARK'90, 1990, pp. 121-135.

24. Pollock, J. L.: Defeasible reasoning, Cognitive Science 11(1987), 481-518.

    Google Scholar 

25. Pollock, J. L.: How to reason defeasibly, Artificial Intelligence 57(1992), 1-42.

    Google Scholar 

26. Poole, D.: On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation, in Proc. of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'85, 1985, pp. 144-147.

27. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G.: On the relation between legal language and legal argument: Assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities, in Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1995.

28. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning, Artificial Intelligence and Law(1996), 331-368.

29. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13(1980), 81-132.

    Google Scholar 

30. Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles, Artificial Intelligence 32(1987), 57-95.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

32. Simari, G. R. and Loui, R. P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, Artificial Intelligence 53(1992), 125-157.

    Google Scholar 

33. Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, 1958.

34. Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems, J. Artificial Intelligence 90(1997), 225-279.

    Google Scholar 

35. Vreeswijk, G. and Prakken, H.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation, in D. Gabbay (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, to appear.

Download references