Total: 1
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: \mathsf{BD}_\circ introduces formulas of the form \circ\phi (the information on \phi is reliable), while \mathsf{BD}_\triangle augments the language with \triangle\phi's (there is information that \phi is true). We define and motivate the notions of abduction problems and explanations in \mathsf{BD}_\circ and \mathsf{BD}_\triangle 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 \mathsf{BD}_\circ and \mathsf{BD}_\triangle to abduction in classical propositional logic, thereby enabling the reuse of existing abductive reasoning procedures.