24,428 research outputs found
Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies
The purpose of this paper is to address some criticisms recently raised by
John Horty in two articles against the validity of two commonly accepted
defeasible reasoning patterns, viz. reinstatement and floating conclusions. I
shall argue that Horty's counterexamples, although they significantly raise our
understanding of these reasoning patterns, do not show their invalidity. Some
of them reflect patterns which, if made explicit in the formalisation, avoid
the unwanted inference without having to give up the criticised inference
principles. Other examples seem to involve hidden assumptions about the
specific problem which, if made explicit, are nothing but extra information
that defeat the defeasible inference. These considerations will be put in a
wider perspective by reflecting on the nature of defeasible reasoning
principles as principles of justified acceptance rather than `real' logical
inference.Comment: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic
Reasoning (NMR'2002), Toulouse, France, April 19-21, 200
Where Fail-Safe Default Logics Fail
Reiter's original definition of default logic allows for the application of a
default that contradicts a previously applied one. We call failure this
condition. The possibility of generating failures has been in the past
considered as a semantical problem, and variants have been proposed to solve
it. We show that it is instead a computational feature that is needed to encode
some domains into default logic
Adaptive logic characterizations of input/output logic
We translate unconstrained and constrained input/output logics as introduced by Makinson and van der Torre to modal logics, using adaptive logics for the constrained case. The resulting reformulation has some additional benefits. First, we obtain a proof-theoretic (dynamic) characterization of input/output logics. Second, we demonstrate that our framework naturally gives rise to useful variants and allows to express important notions that go beyond the expressive means of input/output logics, such as violations and sanctions
Formal Concept Analysis and Resolution in Algebraic Domains
We relate two formerly independent areas: Formal concept analysis and logic
of domains. We will establish a correspondene between contextual attribute
logic on formal contexts resp. concept lattices and a clausal logic on coherent
algebraic cpos. We show how to identify the notion of formal concept in the
domain theoretic setting. In particular, we show that a special instance of the
resolution rule from the domain logic coincides with the concept closure
operator from formal concept analysis. The results shed light on the use of
contexts and domains for knowledge representation and reasoning purposes.Comment: 14 pages. We have rewritten the old version according to the
suggestions of some referees. The results are the same. The presentation is
completely differen
Implementing Default and Autoepistemic Logics via the Logic of GK
The logic of knowledge and justified assumptions, also known as logic of
grounded knowledge (GK), was proposed by Lin and Shoham as a general logic for
nonmonotonic reasoning. To date, it has been used to embed in it default logic
(propositional case), autoepistemic logic, Turner's logic of universal
causation, and general logic programming under stable model semantics. Besides
showing the generality of GK as a logic for nonmonotonic reasoning, these
embeddings shed light on the relationships among these other logics. In this
paper, for the first time, we show how the logic of GK can be embedded into
disjunctive logic programming in a polynomial but non-modular translation with
new variables. The result can then be used to compute the extension/expansion
semantics of default logic, autoepistemic logic and Turner's logic of universal
causation by disjunctive ASP solvers such as claspD(-2), DLV, GNT and cmodels.Comment: Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic
Reasoning (NMR 2014
Complexity of Non-Monotonic Logics
Over the past few decades, non-monotonic reasoning has developed to be one of
the most important topics in computational logic and artificial intelligence.
Different ways to introduce non-monotonic aspects to classical logic have been
considered, e.g., extension with default rules, extension with modal belief
operators, or modification of the semantics. In this survey we consider a
logical formalism from each of the above possibilities, namely Reiter's default
logic, Moore's autoepistemic logic and McCarthy's circumscription.
Additionally, we consider abduction, where one is not interested in inferences
from a given knowledge base but in computing possible explanations for an
observation with respect to a given knowledge base.
Complexity results for different reasoning tasks for propositional variants
of these logics have been studied already in the nineties. In recent years,
however, a renewed interest in complexity issues can be observed. One current
focal approach is to consider parameterized problems and identify reasonable
parameters that allow for FPT algorithms. In another approach, the emphasis
lies on identifying fragments, i.e., restriction of the logical language, that
allow more efficient algorithms for the most important reasoning tasks. In this
survey we focus on this second aspect. We describe complexity results for
fragments of logical languages obtained by either restricting the allowed set
of operators (e.g., forbidding negations one might consider only monotone
formulae) or by considering only formulae in conjunctive normal form but with
generalized clause types.
The algorithmic problems we consider are suitable variants of satisfiability
and implication in each of the logics, but also counting problems, where one is
not only interested in the existence of certain objects (e.g., models of a
formula) but asks for their number.Comment: To appear in Bulletin of the EATC
- …