A Dialogue System for Coherent Reasoning with Inconsistent Knowledge Bases


Traditionally, the AI community assumes that a knowledge base must be consistent. Despite that, there are many applications where, due to the existence of rules with exceptions, inconsistent knowledge must be considered. One way of restoring consistency is to withdraw conflicting rules; however, this will destroy part of the knowledge. Indeed, a better alternative would be to give precedence to exceptions. This paper proposes a dialogue system for coherent reasoning with inconsistent knowledge, which resolves conflicts by using precedence relations of three kinds: explicit precedence relation, which is synthesized from precedence rules; implicit precedence relation, which is synthesized from defeasible rules; mixed precedence relation, which is synthesized by combining explicit and implicit precedence relations.

Share and Cite:

Pereira, S. , Santos, L. and Lira, L. (2015) A Dialogue System for Coherent Reasoning with Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. Journal of Computer and Communications, 3, 11-19. doi: 10.4236/jcc.2015.38002.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Carnielli, W.A. and Marcos, J. (2001) Ex Contradictione Non Sequitur Quodlibet. Proceedings of the II Annual Conference on Reasoning and Logic, Bucharest, July 2001, 89-109.
[2] Walton, D. (2006) Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[3] Potyka, N. and Thimm, M. (2014) Consolidation of Probabilistic Knowledge Bases by Inconsistency Minimization. Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Prague, 27 May 2014, 729-734.http://www.mthimm.de/pub/2014/Potyka_2014.pdf
[4] Efstathiou, V. (2010) Algorithms for Computational Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Ph.D. Thesis, University College London, London. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1301992/1/1301992.pdf
[5] Dung, P.M. (1995) On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and N-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321-357.
[6] Modgil, S.J. and Prakken, H. (2014) The ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation: A Tutorial. Argument and Computation, 5, 31-62.
[7] Gorogiannis, N. and Hunter, A. (2011) Instantiating Abstract Argumentation with Classical Logic Arguments: Postulates and Properties. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 1479-1497.
[8] García, A.J. and Simari, G.R. (2004) Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4, 95-138.
[9] Verheij, B. (1999) Logic, Context and Valid Inference or: Can There Be a Logic of Law? In: Jaap van den Herik, H., et al., Eds., Legal Knowledge Based Systems, GNI, Nijmegen, 109-121.
[10] Kowalski, R. (1974) Predicate Logic as a Programming Language. Information Processing, North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 569-574. http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rak/papers/IFIP%2074.pdf
[11] Stolzenburg, F., et al. (2002) Computing Generalized Specificity. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 12, 1-27.http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-1737-3_4
[12] Besnard, P. and Hunter, A. (2008) Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge.
[13] Prakken, H. (2006) Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review, 21, 163-188.http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/archive/henry/dgreview.pdf
[14] Russell, S. and Norvig, P. (2010) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
[15] Bratko, I. (2011) Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence. 4th Edition, Pearson, Canada.

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.