Reasoning in inconsistent prioritized knowledge bases: an argumentative approach

A study of query answering in prioritized ontological knowledge bases (KBs) has received attention in recent years. While several semantics of query answering have been proposed and their complexity is rather well-understood, the problem of explaining inconsistency-tolerant query answers has paid less attention. Explaining query answers permits users to understand not only what is entailed or not entailed by an inconsistent DL-LiteR KBs in the presence of priority, but also why. We, therefore, concern with the use of argumentation frameworks to allow users to better understand explanation techniques of querying answers over inconsistent DL-LiteR KBs in the presence of priority. More specifically, we propose a new variant of Dung’s argumentation frameworks, which corresponds to a given inconsistent DL-LiteR KB. We clarify a close relation between preferred subtheories adopted in such prioritized DL-LiteR setting and acceptable semantics of the corresponding argumentation framework. The significant result paves the way for applying algorithms and proof theories to establish preferred subtheories inferences in prioritized DL-LiteR KBs

On the Application of Argument Accrual to Reasoning with Inconsistent Possibilistic Ontologies

We present an approach for performing instance checking in a suitable subset of possibilistic description logic programming ontologies by using argument accrual. Ontologies are interpreted in possibilistic logic programming under Dung's grounded semantics. We present a reasoning framework with a case study and a Java-based implementation for enacting the proposed approach.XVII Workshop Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI).Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

On the Application of Argument Accrual to Reasoning with Inconsistent Possibilistic Ontologies

We present an approach for performing instance checking in a suitable subset of possibilistic description logic programming ontologies by using argument accrual. Ontologies are interpreted in possibilistic logic programming under Dung's grounded semantics. We present a reasoning framework with a case study and a Java-based implementation for enacting the proposed approach.XVII Workshop Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI).Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Querying and Repairing Inconsistent Prioritized Knowledge Bases: Complexity Analysis and Links with Abstract Argumentation

In this paper, we explore the issue of inconsistency handling over prioritized knowledge bases (KBs), which consist of an ontology, a set of facts, and a priority relation between conflicting facts. In the database setting, a closely related scenario has been studied and led to the definition of three different notions of optimal repairs (global, Pareto, and completion) of a prioritized inconsistent database. After transferring the notions of globally-, Pareto- and completion-optimal repairs to our setting, we study the data complexity of the core reasoning tasks: query entailment under inconsistency-tolerant semantics based upon optimal repairs, existence of a unique optimal repair, and enumeration of all optimal repairs. Our results provide a nearly complete picture of the data complexity of these tasks for ontologies formulated in common DL-Lite dialects. The second contribution of our work is to clarify the relationship between optimal repairs and different notions of extensions for (set-based) argumentation frameworks. Among our results, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs correspond precisely to stable extensions (and often also to preferred extensions), and we propose a novel semantics for prioritized KBs which is inspired by grounded extensions and enjoys favourable computational properties. Our study also yields some results of independent interest concerning preference-based argumentation frameworks.Comment: 27 pages. To appear in the 17th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2020) without the appendi

Querying and Repairing Inconsistent Prioritized Knowledge Bases: Complexity Analysis and Links with Abstract Argumentation

International audienceIn this paper, we explore the issue of inconsistency handling over prioritized knowledge bases (KBs), which consist of an ontology, a set of facts, and a priority relation between conflicting facts. In the database setting, a closely related scenario has been studied and led to the definition of three different notions of optimal repairs (global, Pareto, and completion) of a prioritized inconsistent database. After transferring the notions of globally-, Pareto- and completion-optimal repairs to our setting, we study the data complexity of the core reasoning tasks: query entailment under inconsistency-tolerant semantics based upon optimal repairs, existence of a unique optimal repair, and enumeration of all optimal repairs. Our results provide a nearly complete picture of the data complexity of these tasks for ontologies formulated in common DL-Lite dialects. The second contribution of our work is to clarify the relationship between optimal repairs and different notions of extensions for (set-based) argumentation frameworks. Among our results, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs correspond precisely to stable extensions (and often also to preferred extensions), and we propose a novel semantics for prioritized KBs which is inspired by grounded extensions and enjoys favourable computational properties. Our study also yields some results of independent interest concerning preference-based argumentation frameworks

Reasoning with Inconsistent Possibilistic Ontologies by Applying Argument Accrual

We present an approach for performing instance checking in possibilistic description logic programming ontologies by accruing arguments that support the membership of individuals to concepts. Ontologies are interpreted as possibilistic logic programs where accruals of arguments as regarded as vertexes in an abstract argumentation framework. A suitable attack relation between accruals is defined. We present a reasoning framework with a case study and a Java-based implementation for enacting the proposed approach that is capable of reasoning under Dung’s grounded semantics.Facultad de Informátic

Belief revision and computational argumentation: a critical comparison

This paper aims at comparing and relating belief revision and argumentation as approaches to model reasoning processes. Referring to some prominent literature references in both fields, we will discuss their (implicit or explicit) assumptions on the modeled processes and hence commonalities and differences in the forms of reason ing they are suitable to deal with. The intended contribution is on one hand assessing the (not fully explored yet) relationships between two lively research fields in the broad area of defeasible reasoning and on the other hand pointing out open issues and potential directions for future research.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Weighted logics for artificial intelligence : an introductory discussion

International audienceBefore presenting the contents of the special issue, we propose a structured introductory overview of a landscape of the weighted logics (in a general sense) that can be found in the Artificial Intelligence literature, highlighting their fundamental differences and their application areas

Friedman’s Methodology: A Puzzle and A Proposal for Generating Useful Debates through Causal Comparisons

Milton Friedman’s “The Methodology of Positive Economies” is still one of the most widely read pieces on economic methodology. One reason for this might be Friedman’s attractive proposal that economists use theories and hypotheses as pragmatic devices to summarize data and make predictions over the relevant range of observations. Logically, this should lead to a fair minded comparison among many contending theories. However, Friedman's actual examples and discussion of these examples raise a puzzle. The field of comparison seems unduly narrow from the beginning. In my attempt to resolve this, I consider some logical and ontological problems for Friedman's position. I end up by suggesting a scientific realist approach to testing theories by causal comparisons over a wide field of contending theories.economic methodology,Milton Friedman's methodology,logic and and ontology,causal comparisons,scientific realism