Managing Inconsistent Possibilistic Knowledge Bases by An Argumentation Approach
نویسندگان
چکیده
Inconsistent knowledge bases usually are regarded as an epistemic hell that have to be avoided at all costs. However, many times it is di cult or impossible to stay away of managing inconsistent knowledge bases. In this paper, we introduce an argumentation-based approach in order to manage inconsistent possibilistic knowledge bases. This approach will be exible enough for managing inconsistent possibilistic models and the non-existence of possibilistic models of a possibilistic logic program.
منابع مشابه
A Split-Combination Method for Merging Inconsistent Possibilistic Knowledge Bases
In this paper, a new method for merging multiple inconsistent knowledge bases in the framework of possibilistic logic is presented. We divide the fusion process into two steps: one is called the splitting step and the other is called the combination step. Given several inconsistent possibilistic knowledge bases (i.e. the union of these possibilistic bases is inconsistent), we split each of them...
متن کاملModality-based Argumentation Using Possibilistic Stable Models
In many fields of automated information processing it becomes crucial to consider together imprecise, uncertain or inconsistent information. Modalities are terms which indicate the level of certainty with which a claim can be made. Argumentation theory is a suitable framework for practical and uncertain reasoning, where arguments could support conclusions. We present a modality-based argumentat...
متن کاملA Logic Programming Framework for Possibilistic Argumentation with Vague Knowledge
Defeasible argumentation frameworks have evolved to become a sound setting to formalize commonsense, qualitative reasoning from incomplete and potentially inconsistent knowledge. Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) is a defeasible argumentation formalism based on an extension of logic programming. Although DeLP has been successfully integrated in a number of different real-world applications, D...
متن کاملAn Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases: The Prioritized Case
An important problem in the management of knowledge-based systems is the handling of inconsistency. Inconsistency may appear because the knowledge may come from different sources of information. To solve this problem, two kinds of approaches have been proposed. The first category merges the different bases into a unique base, and the second category of approaches, such as argumentation, accepts...
متن کاملUsing Arguments for Making Decisions: A Possibilistic Logic Approach
Humans currently use arguments for explaining choices which are already made, or for evaluating potential choices. Each potential choice has usually pros and cons of various strengths. In spite of the usefulness of arguments in a decision making process, there have been few formal proposals handling this idea if we except works by Fox and Parsons and by Bonet and Geffner. In this paper we propo...
متن کامل