×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Logic-based argumentation with existential rules. (English) Zbl 1419.68106
Summary: In this paper we are interested in the use of argumentation for handling inconsistency in inconsistent knowledge bases expressed with existential rules. We propose an instantiation of an argumentation framework and demonstrate it is coherent, relatively grounded and non-trivial, therefore satisfying the rationality postulates from the literature. We demonstrate how argumentation semantics relate to the state of the art of handling inconsistency in this setting, allowing us to propose the first dialectical proof in the literature for a given semantics.
MSC:
68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
68T30 Knowledge representation
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Abiteboul, S.; Hull, R.; Vianu, V., Foundations of databases, (1995), Addison-Wesley Reading
[2] Amgoud, L., Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 55, 9, 2028-2048, (2014) · Zbl 1433.68438
[3] Amgoud, L.; Dimopoulos, Y.; Moraitis, P., Making decisions through preference-based argumentation, (Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’08), vol. 8, (2008)), 963-970
[4] Amgoud, L.; Saint-Cyr, D.; Dupin, F., An axiomatic approach for persuasion dialogs, (Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI’13), (2013), IEEE), 618-625
[5] Arenas, M.; Bertossi, L.; Chomicki, J., Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases, (Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, (1999), ACM), 68-79
[6] Arioua, A.; Croitoru, M., Dialectical characterization of consistent query explanation with existential rules, (Proceedings of the 29th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS’16), (2016)), 14-19
[7] Arioua, A.; Croitoru, M., A dialectical proof theory for universal acceptance in coherent logic-based argumentation frameworks, (Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’16, (2016)) · Zbl 1403.68250
[8] Baader, F.; Brandt, S.; Lutz, C., Pushing the el envelope, (Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’05, (2005))
[9] Baget, J.; Benferhat, S.; Bouraoui, Z.; Croitoru, M.; Mugnier, M.; Papini, O.; Rocher, S.; Tabia, K., A general modifier-based framework for inconsistency-tolerant query answering, (Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR’16, (2016)), 513-516
[10] Baget, J.-F.; Leclère, M.; Mugnier, M.-L.; Salvat, E., On rules with existential variables: walking the decidability line, Artif. Intell., 175, 9-10, 1620-1654, (2011) · Zbl 1225.68247
[11] Baget, J.-F.; Mugnier, M.-L.; Rudolph, S.; Thomazo, M., Walking the complexity lines for generalized guarded existential rules, (Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’11, (2011)), 712-717
[12] Besnard, P.; Hunter, A., Elements of argumentation, vol. 47, (2008), MIT Press Cambridge
[13] Bex, F. J.; Modgil, S. J.; Prakken, H.; Reed, C., On logical specifications of the argument interchange format, J. Log. Comput., 23, 5, 951-989, (2013) · Zbl 1275.68135
[14] Bienvenu, M.; Rosati, R., Tractable approximations of consistent query answering for robust ontology-based data access, (Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’13, (2013))
[15] Black, E.; Hunter, A.; Pan, J. Z., An argument-based approach to using multiple ontologies, (Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, SUM’09, (2009), Springer-Verlag), 68-79
[16] Bondarenko, A.; Toni, F.; Kowalski, R. A., An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning, (Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, LPNMR’93, vol. 93, (1993)), 171-189
[17] Calì, A.; Gottlob, G.; Lukasiewicz, T., A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies, J. Web Semant., 14, 57-83, (2012)
[18] Calvanese, D.; De Giacomo, G.; Lembo, D.; Lenzerini, M.; Rosati, R., Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: the DL-lite family, J. Autom. Reason., 39, 3, 385-429, (2007) · Zbl 1132.68725
[19] Caminada, M.; Amgoud, L., On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms, Artif. Intell., 171, 5-6, 286-310, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68562
[20] Cayrol, C., On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment, (Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’95, (1995)), 1443-1448
[21] Cayrol, C.; Doutre, S.; Mengin, J., On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks, J. Log. Comput., 13, 3, 377-403, (2003) · Zbl 1032.03518
[22] Ceri, S.; Gottlob, G.; Tanca, L., What you always wanted to know about Datalog (and never dared to ask), IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 1, 1, 146-166, (1989)
[23] Chein, M.; Mugnier, M., Graph-based knowledge representation - computational foundations of conceptual graphs, Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing, (2009), Springer · Zbl 1168.68043
[24] Chesnevar, C.; McGinnis, J.; Modgil, S.; Rahwan, I.; Reed, C.; Simari, G.; South, M.; Vreeswijk, G.; Willmott, S., Towards an argument interchange format, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 21, 4, 293-316, (2006)
[25] Chomicki, J., Consistent query answering: five easy pieces, (International Conference on Database Theory, ICDT’07, (2007), Springer), 1-17
[26] Croitoru, M.; Vesic, S., What can argumentation do for inconsistent ontology query answering?, (Proceedings of the International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, SUM’13, (2013), Springer), 15-29
[27] Doutre, S.; Mengin, J., On sceptical versus credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems, (Logics in Artificial Intelligence, (2004), Springer), 462-473 · Zbl 1111.68672
[28] Dung, P. M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artif. Intell., 77, 2, 321-357, (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[29] Dunne, P. E.; Bench-Capon, T. J., Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency, Artif. Intell., 149, 2, 221-250, (2003) · Zbl 1082.68819
[30] Eiter, T.; Gottlob, G., Hypergraph transversal computation and related problems in logic and AI, (European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, (2002), Springer), 549-564 · Zbl 1013.68143
[31] Fagin, R., Encyclopedia of database systems, chapter tuple-generating dependencies, 3201-3202, (2009), Springer, US
[32] García, A. J.; Simari, G. R., Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach, Theory Pract. Log. Program., 4, 1-2, 95-138, (2004) · Zbl 1090.68015
[33] Jakobovits, H.; Vermeir, D., Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks, (Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, (1999), ACM), 53-62
[34] Johnson, M. W.; McBurney, P.; Parsons, S., When are two protocols the same?, (Communication in Multiagent Systems, (2003), Springer), 253-268
[35] Lembo, D.; Lenzerini, M.; Rosati, R.; Ruzzi, M.; Savo, D. F., Inconsistency-tolerant semantics for description logics, (Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, RR’10, (2010), Springer-Verlag), 103-117
[36] Marnette, B., Generalized schema-mappings: from termination to tractability, (Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, (2009), ACM), 13-22
[37] Modgil, S.; Caminada, M., Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks, (Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, (2009), Springer US), 105-129
[38] Modgil, S.; Prakken, H., A general account of argumentation with preferences, Artif. Intell., 195, 361-397, (2013) · Zbl 1270.68284
[39] Poggi, A.; Lembo, D.; Calvanese, D.; De Giacomo, G.; Lenzerini, M.; Rosati, R., Linking data to ontologies, (Journal on Data Semantics X, (2008), Springer), 133-173 · Zbl 1132.68061
[40] Prakken, H., Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation, Synthese, 127, 1-2, 187-219, (2001) · Zbl 0980.03032
[41] Reiter, R., A theory of diagnosis from first principles, Artif. Intell., 32, 1, 57-95, (1987) · Zbl 0643.68122
[42] Rescher, N.; Manor, R., On inference from inconsistent premises, Theory Decis., 1, 2, 179-217, (1970) · Zbl 0212.31103
[43] Thang, P. M.; Dung, P. M.; Hung, N. D., Towards a common framework for dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation, J. Log. Comput., 19, 6, 1071-1109, (2009) · Zbl 1185.68677
[44] Vesic, S., Identifying the class of maxi-consistent operators in argumentation, J. Artif. Intell. Res., 47, 71-93, (2013) · Zbl 1276.68143
[45] Vreeswik, G. A.; Prakken, H., Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics, (European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA’00, (2000), Springer), 239-253 · Zbl 0998.68162
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.