Merging Deductive and Abductive Knowledge Bases: An Argumentation Context Approach

نویسندگان

  • Juan Carlos Nieves
  • Helena Lindgren
چکیده

The consideration of heterogenous knowledge sources for supporting decision making is key to accomplish informed decisions, e.g., about medical diagnosis. Consequently, merging different data from different knowledge bases is a key issue for providing support for decision-making. In this paper, we explore an argumentation context approach, which follows how medical professionals typically reason, in order to merge two basic kinds of reasoning approaches based on logic programs: deductive and abductive inferences. In this setting, we introduce two kinds of argumentation frameworks: deductive argumentation frameworks and abductive argumentation frameworks. For merging these argumentation frameworks, we follow an approach based on argumentation context systems. We illustrate the approach by considering two different declarative specifications of evidence-based medical knowledge into logic programs in order to support informed medical decisions.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

What Kind of Proof Can Be Constructed following an Abductive Argumentation?

My interests focus on the comparison between the abductive argumentation supporting a conjecture and the related proof. In particular, .the purpose of my research is to show the importance of a structural analysis between them (from an abductive argumentation to a deductive proof, from an abductive argumentation to an abductive “proof”). I propose the Toulmin’s model as a tool which can be used...

متن کامل

An Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases: The Prioritized Case

An important problem in the management of knowledge-based systems is the handling of inconsistency. Inconsistency may appear because the knowledge may come from different sources of information. To solve this problem, two kinds of approaches have been proposed. The first category merges the different bases into a unique base, and the second category of approaches, such as argumentation, accepts...

متن کامل

An Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases

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 clas...

متن کامل

Updates of argumentation frameworks

Two main topics are studied in this work. First, updates of assumption-based frameworks over deductive systems. Second, a problem of an inertia of an admissible set after an update of an abstract argumentation framework. We consider an assumption-based framework over a logic program as composed of three parts – an argumentation framework, a deduction machinery and a knowledge base (a logic prog...

متن کامل

1 2 An argumentation framework for 3 merging conflicting knowledge bases q 4

11 The problem of merging multiple sources of information is central in many information process12 ing areas such as databases integrating problems, multiple criteria decision making, etc. To solve this 13 problem, two kinds of approaches have been proposed. The first category of approaches merges the 14 different bases into a unique consistent base, and the second category, such as argumentati...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Polibits

دوره 48  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2013