Argumentative logics: reasoning with classically inconsistent information
Data & Knowledge Engineering
Integration of weighted knowledge bases
Artificial Intelligence
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Management of Preferences in Assumption-Based Reasoning
IPMU '92 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems: Advanced Methods in Artificial Intelligence
Modeling Dialogues Using Argumentation
ICMAS '00 Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000)
On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence based entailment
IJCAI'95 Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2
The conflict detection and resolution in knowledge merging for image annotation
Information Processing and Management: an International Journal
On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
Artificial Intelligence
An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
Partial information basis for agent-based collaborative dialogue
Applied Intelligence
Contextual user profile for adapting information in nomadic environments
WISE'07 Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on Web information systems engineering
Two-Agent Conflict Resolution with Assumption-Based Argumentation
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases: the prioritized case
ECSQARU'05 Proceedings of the 8th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The problem of merging multiple sources of information is central in many information processing areas such as databases integrating problems, multiple criteria decision making, etc. Recently several approaches have been proposed to merge classical propositional bases. These approaches are in general semantically defined. They use priorities, generally based on Dalal's distance for merging classical conflicting bases and return a new classical base as a result. In this paper, we present an argumentation framework for solving conflicts which could be applied to conflicts arising between agents in a multi-agent system. We suppose that each agent is represented by a consistent knowledge base and that the different agents are conflicting. We show that by selecting an appropriate preference relation between arguments, that framework can be used for merging conflicting bases and recovers the results of the different approaches proposed for merging bases [8, 12, 14, 13, 16, 17].