To Preference via Entrenchment

We introduce a simple generalization of Gardenfors and Makinson's epistemic entrenchment called partial entrenchment. We show that preferential inference can be generated as the sceptical counterpart of an inference mechanism defined directly on partial entrenchment.Comment: 16 page

Probabilistic Default Reasoning with Conditional Constraints

We propose a combination of probabilistic reasoning from conditional constraints with approaches to default reasoning from conditional knowledge bases. In detail, we generalize the notions of Pearl's entailment in system Z, Lehmann's lexicographic entailment, and Geffner's conditional entailment to conditional constraints. We give some examples that show that the new notions of z-, lexicographic, and conditional entailment have similar properties like their classical counterparts. Moreover, we show that the new notions of z-, lexicographic, and conditional entailment are proper generalizations of both their classical counterparts and the classical notion of logical entailment for conditional constraints.Comment: 8 pages; to appear in Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Special Session on Uncertainty Frameworks in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, 9-11 April 200

A reconstruction of the multipreference closure

The paper describes a preferential approach for dealing with exceptions in KLM preferential logics, based on the rational closure. It is well known that the rational closure does not allow an independent handling of the inheritance of different defeasible properties of concepts. Several solutions have been proposed to face this problem and the lexicographic closure is the most notable one. In this work, we consider an alternative closure construction, called the Multi Preference closure (MP-closure), that has been first considered for reasoning with exceptions in DLs. Here, we reconstruct the notion of MP-closure in the propositional case and we show that it is a natural variant of Lehmann's lexicographic closure. Abandoning Maximal Entropy (an alternative route already considered but not explored by Lehmann) leads to a construction which exploits a different lexicographic ordering w.r.t. the lexicographic closure, and determines a preferential consequence relation rather than a rational consequence relation. We show that, building on the MP-closure semantics, rationality can be recovered, at least from the semantic point of view, resulting in a rational consequence relation which is stronger than the rational closure, but incomparable with the lexicographic closure. We also show that the MP-closure is stronger than the Relevant Closure.Comment: 57 page

Choosing Your Nonmonotonic Logic: A Shopper’s Guide

The paper presents an exhaustive menu of nonmonotonic logics. The options are individuated in terms of the principles they reject. I locate, e.g., cumulative logics and relevance logics on this menu. I highlight some frequently neglected options, and I argue that these neglected options are particularly attractive for inferentialists

Nonmonotonic Probabilistic Logics between Model-Theoretic Probabilistic Logic and Probabilistic Logic under Coherence

Recently, it has been shown that probabilistic entailment under coherence is weaker than model-theoretic probabilistic entailment. Moreover, probabilistic entailment under coherence is a generalization of default entailment in System P. In this paper, we continue this line of research by presenting probabilistic generalizations of more sophisticated notions of classical default entailment that lie between model-theoretic probabilistic entailment and probabilistic entailment under coherence. That is, the new formalisms properly generalize their counterparts in classical default reasoning, they are weaker than model-theoretic probabilistic entailment, and they are stronger than probabilistic entailment under coherence. The new formalisms are useful especially for handling probabilistic inconsistencies related to conditioning on zero events. They can also be applied for probabilistic belief revision. More generally, in the same spirit as a similar previous paper, this paper sheds light on exciting new formalisms for probabilistic reasoning beyond the well-known standard ones.Comment: 10 pages; in Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR-2002), Special Session on Uncertainty Frameworks in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pages 265-274, Toulouse, France, April 200