A review of proposed principles of causal non-monotonic reasoning

Within Non-monotonic Reasoning, numerous principles of causal reasoning have been proposed. Many of these principles have been viewed as desirable in formalisms that reason with causality, and have been widely adopted throughout the literature. We provide a critique of these principles, evaluate their suitability for characterising and formulating causal non-monotonic reasoning, and find that most are unsuitable. Further, we discuss a new approach to causal non-monotonic reasoning motivated by how humans typically reason with causality

A review of proposed principles of causal non-monotonic reasoning

Within Non-monotonic Reasoning, numerous principles of causal reasoning have been proposed. Many of these principles have been viewed as desirable in formalisms that reason with causality, and have been widely adopted throughout the literature. We provide a critique of these principles, evaluate their suitability for characterising and formulating causal non-monotonic reasoning, and find that most are unsuitable. Further, we discuss a new approach to causal non-monotonic reasoning motivated by how humans typically reason with causality

A Logic Programming Approach to Knowledge-State Planning: Semantics and Complexity

We propose a new declarative planning language, called K, which is based on principles and methods of logic programming. In this language, transitions between states of knowledge can be described, rather than transitions between completely described states of the world, which makes the language well-suited for planning under incomplete knowledge. Furthermore, it enables the use of default principles in the planning process by supporting negation as failure. Nonetheless, K also supports the representation of transitions between states of the world (i.e., states of complete knowledge) as a special case, which shows that the language is very flexible. As we demonstrate on particular examples, the use of knowledge states may allow for a natural and compact problem representation. We then provide a thorough analysis of the computational complexity of K, and consider different planning problems, including standard planning and secure planning (also known as conformant planning) problems. We show that these problems have different complexities under various restrictions, ranging from NP to NEXPTIME in the propositional case. Our results form the theoretical basis for the DLV^K system, which implements the language K on top of the DLV logic programming system.Comment: 48 pages, appeared as a Technical Report at KBS of the Vienna University of Technology, see http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/research/reports

Logical properties of nonmonotonic causal theories and the action language C+

The formalism of nonmonotonic causal theories (Giunchiglia, Lee, Lifschitz, McCain, Turner, 2004) provides a general-purpose formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning and knowledge representation, as well as a higher level, special-purpose notation, the action language C+, for specifying and reasoning about the e ects of actions and the persistence (`inertia') of facts over time. In this paper we investigate some logical properties of these formalisms. There are two motivations. From the technical point of view, we seek to gain additional insights into the properties of the languages when viewed as a species of conditional logic. From the practical point of view, we are seeking to nd conditions under which two di erent causal theories, or two di erent action descriptions in C+, can be said to be equivalent, with the further aim of helping to decide between alternative formulations when constructing practical applications. A condensed version of this paper appeared as `Some logical properties of nonmonotonic causal theories', Proc. Eighth International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, LNCS, Springer

Arguing about causes in law: a semi-formal framework for causal arguments

In legal argumentation and liability attribution, disputes over causes play a central role. Legal discussions about causation often have difficulty with cause-in-fact in complex situations, e.g. overdetermination, preemption, omission. We first assess three theories of causation. Then we introduce a semi-formal framework to model causal arguments using both strict and defeasible rules. We apply the framework to the Althen vaccine injury case. Wrapping up the paper, we motivate a causal argumentation framework and propose to integrate current theories of causation

Causality & Control flow

Causality has been the issue of philosophic debate since Hippocrates. It is used in formal verification and testing, e.g., to explain counterexamples or construct fault trees. Recent work defines actual causation in terms of Pearl's causality framework, but most definitions brought forward so far struggle with examples where one event preempts another one. A key point to capturing such examples in the context of programs or distributed systems is a sound treatment of control flow. We discuss how causal models should incorporate control flow and discover that much of what Pearl/Halpern's notion of contingencies tries to capture is captured better by an explicit modelling of the control flow in terms of structural equations and an arguably simpler definition. Inspired by causality notions in the security domain, we bring forward a definition of causality that takes these control-variables into account. This definition provides a clear picture of the interaction between control flow and causality and captures these notoriously difficult preemption examples without secondary concepts. We give convincing results on a benchmark of 34 examples from the literature