PulseAugur
LIVE 07:13:20
research · [2 sources] ·
0
research

New research links inconsistent databases to argumentation frameworks

By PulseAugur Editorial · Summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite from 2 sources

This paper explores the relationship between repairing inconsistent databases and argumentation frameworks. It introduces SETAFs, an extension of Dung's argumentation frameworks, to handle collective attacks. The research establishes connections between database repairs under specific integrity constraints and various extensions within these frameworks, particularly preferred extensions. AI

Summary written by gemini-2.5-flash-lite from 2 sources. How we write summaries →

RANK_REASON This is a research paper published on arXiv detailing theoretical connections between database consistency and argumentation frameworks.

Read on arXiv cs.AI →

COVERAGE [2]

  1. arXiv cs.AI TIER_1 · Yasir Mahmood, Jonni Virtema, Timon Barlag, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo ·

    Inconsistent Databases and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks

    arXiv:2605.03954v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The connection between subset-maximal repairs for inconsistent databases involving various integrity constraints and acceptable sets of arguments within argumentation frameworks has recently drawn growing interest. In this paper, …

  2. arXiv cs.AI TIER_1 · Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo ·

    Inconsistent Databases and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks

    The connection between subset-maximal repairs for inconsistent databases involving various integrity constraints and acceptable sets of arguments within argumentation frameworks has recently drawn growing interest. In this paper, we contribute to this domain by establishing a new…

RELATED ENTITIES

RELATED TOPICS