We explore the problem of explaining observations starting from a classically inconsistent theory by adopting a paraconsistent framework. We consider two expansions of the well-known Belnap--Dunn paraconsistent four-valued logic BD: BD_∘ introduces formulas of the form ∘φ (the information on φ is reliable), while BD_ augments the language with φ's (there is information that φ is true). We define and motivate the notions of abduction problems and explanations in BD_∘ and BD_ and show that they are not reducible to one another. We analyse the complexity of standard abductive reasoning tasks (solution recognition, solution existence, and relevance / necessity of hypotheses) in both logics. Finally, we show how to reduce abduction in BD_∘ and BD_ to abduction in classical propositional logic, thereby enabling the reuse of existing abductive reasoning procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bienvenu et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: