On the Relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment

I he purpose of this paper is to discuss and compare t w o types o f methods fo r reasoning w i t h i n c o n s i s t e n t be l i e f bases coherence based approaches to non monolonic entailment based on the se lec t ion and management of consistent subbascs and argumentation systems based on the construction and selection of arguments in favor of a conc lus ion we present several argumentation systems then we show that most of the associated inference relations can be also defined using wel l known principles for selecting consistent subbases So we establish a formal correspondence between the so-called argumentation paradigm and recent work on n o n m o n o t o n i c entai lment Lastly we propose several d i rect ions for further research concerning the integrauon of preference relations into argumentation systems