Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating preference orderings into argument-based reasoning

  • Accepted Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning (FAPR 1997, ECSQARU 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1244))

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol. Intégration de préférences dans le raisonnement argumentatif. Tech. Report no97-04-R, IRIT, Univ. Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, Fev. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  3. L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol, D. Le Berre. Comparing Arguments using Preference Orderings for Argument-based Reasoning. Proc. ICTAI'96, 400–403.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade. How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? Proc. IJCAI'95, 1449–1455.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Cayrol. On the relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-based Entailment. Proc. IJCAI'95, 1443–1448.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. Proc. IJCAI'93, 852–857.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Hunter. Defeasible reasoning with structured information. Proc. KR'94, 281–292.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J.L. Pollock. How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence, 57: 1–42, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  17. G.R. Simari, R.P. Loui. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53: 125–157, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. G. Vreeswijk. The feasibility of Defeat in Defeasible Reasoning. Proc. KR'91, 526–534.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (I. R. I. T.), Université Paul Sabatier, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse Cedex, France

    Leila Amgoud & Claudette Cayrol

Authors
  1. Leila Amgoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudette Cayrol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Dov M. Gabbay Rudolf Kruse Andreas Nonnengart Hans Jürgen Ohlbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation