On the Relation Between Argumentation and Non-Monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and compare two types of methods for reasoning with inconsistent belief bases coherence based approaches to non monolonic entailment based on the selection and management of consistent subbasis and argumentation systems based on the construction and selection of arguments in favor of a conclusion. we present several argumentation systems then we show that most of the associated inference relations can be also defined using well known principles for selecting consistent subbases. So we establish a formal correspondence between the so-called argumentation paradigm and recent work on nonmonotonic entailment Lastly we propose several directions for further research concerning the integration of preference relations into argumentation systems.