# Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1503 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1303.1503/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2013.

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Inferring Attack Relations for Gradual Semantics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.16118/) (2022)
- [Intrinsic Argument Strength in Structured Argumentation: a Principled Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00318/) (2021)
- [An Argumentative Approach for Explaining Preemption in Soft-Constraint Based Norms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.04065/) (2024)
- [Broadening the Applicability of Conditional Syntax Splitting for Reasoning from Conditional Belief Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.12660/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This paper presents and discusses several methods for reasoning from inconsistent knowledge bases. A so-called argumentative-consequence relation taking into account the existence of consistent arguments in favor of a conclusion and the absence of consistent arguments in favor of its contrary, is particularly investigated. Flat knowledge bases, i.e. without any priority between their elements, as well as prioritized ones where some elements are considered as more strongly entrenched than others are studied under different consequence relations. Lastly a paraconsistent-like treatment of prioritized knowledge bases is proposed, where both the level of entrenchment and the level of paraconsistency attached to a formula are propagated. The priority levels are handled in the framework of possibility theory.