6 accepted papers
Inconsistency measures quantify the degree of conflict within a set of propositions. They can be broadly categorized into global measures, which assess the overall inconsistency of a set, and local measures, which evaluate the contribution of single formulas to the overall inconsistency. This paper
We present a novel computational approach to resolving conflicts among norms by nonmonotonic normative reasoning (in constrained I/O logics). Our approach extends standard sequent-based proof systems and makes them more adequate to nonmonotonic reasoning by adding to the sequents annotations that ke…
Logical conflicts are likely to arise in logic-based intelligent systems. Managing these conflicts has been intensely studied in various parts of Artificial Intelligence (AI). So far, the AI research community has paid more attention to measuring the degree of inconsistency of knowledge bases. The k…
Ranking is ubiquitous in everyday life. This paper is concerned with the problem of ranking information of a knowledge base when this latter is possibly inconsistent. In particular, the key issue is to elicit a plausibility order on the formulas in an inconsistent knowledge base. We show how such or…
In formal argumentation, a distinction can be made between extension-based semantics, where sets of arguments are either (jointly) accepted or not, and ranking-based semantics, where grades of accept- ability are assigned to arguments. Another important distinction is that between abstract approac…
We introduce annotated sequent calculi, which are extensions of standard sequent calculi, where sequents are combined with annotations that represent their derivation statuses. Unlike in ordinary calculi, sequents that are derived in annotated calculi may still be retracted in the presence of confli…