Soutenance de la thèse d'Abdallah Arioua le 17 Octobre 2016 à 14h, campus St Priest, bât 5, salle bat5-3/124
Abdallah Arioua soutiendra sa thèse de doctorat intitulée "Formalizing and Studying Dialectical Explanations in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases" le 17 Octobre 2016 à 14h, campus St Priest, bât 5, salle bat5-3/124.
Composition du jury:
Co-directeurs et co-encadrant:
- M. Patrice BUCHE Ingénieur de recherches, HDR INRA UMR IATE
- Mme. Madalina CROITORU Maitre de Conférence, HDR Université de Montpellier
- M. Jérôme FORTIN Maitre de Conférence Université de Montpellier
- M. Anthony HUNTER Professeur University College London
- M. Nicolas MAUDET Professeur Université de Pierre et Marie Curie
- Mme. Juliette DIBIE Professeur AgroParisTech
- Mme. Leila AMGOUD Directrice de recherche CNRS Université de Toulouse
- M. Bernard CUQ Professeur Montpellier SupAgro
Knowledge bases are deductive databases where the machinery of logic
is used to represent domain-specific and general-purpose knowledge over
existing data. In the existential rules framework, a knowledge base is composed
of two layers: the data layer which represents the factual knowledge,
and the ontological layer that incorporates rules of deduction and negative
constraints. The main reasoning service in such framework is answering
queries over the data layer by means of the ontological layer. As in classical
logic, contradictions trivialize query answering since everything follows
from a contradiction (ex falso quodlibet). Recently, inconsistency-tolerant
approaches have been proposed to cope with such problem in the existential
rules framework. They deploy repairing strategies on the knowledge base
to restore consistency and overcome the problem of trivialization. However,
these approaches are sometimes unintelligible and not straightforward for
the end-user as they implement complex repairing strategies. This would
jeopardize the trust relation between the user and the knowledge-based system.
In this thesis we answer the research question: "How do we make
query answering intelligible to the end-user in presence of inconsistency?".
To answer the question we consider the general framework of argumentation
and we propose three types of explanations: (1) One-shot Argument-based
Explanations, (2) Meta-level Dialectical Explanations, and (3) Object-level
Dialectical Explanations. The First one is a set of arguments in favor or
against the query in question. The two others take the form of a dialogue
between the user and the reasoner about the entailment of a given query.
We study these explanations in the framework of logic-based argumentation
and dialectics and we study their properties and their impact on users.
Keywords: Argumentation, Inconsistency, Explanation, Dialogue Games,
Existential Rules, Datalog+-.
Publiée : 28/09/2016