12,959 research outputs found
Logic of Negation-Complete Interactive Proofs (Formal Theory of Epistemic Deciders)
We produce a decidable classical normal modal logic of internalised
negation-complete and thus disjunctive non-monotonic interactive proofs (LDiiP)
from an existing logical counterpart of non-monotonic or instant interactive
proofs (LiiP). LDiiP internalises agent-centric proof theories that are
negation-complete (maximal) and consistent (and hence strictly weaker than, for
example, Peano Arithmetic) and enjoy the disjunction property (like
Intuitionistic Logic). In other words, internalised proof theories are
ultrafilters and all internalised proof goals are definite in the sense of
being either provable or disprovable to an agent by means of disjunctive
internalised proofs (thus also called epistemic deciders). Still, LDiiP itself
is classical (monotonic, non-constructive), negation-incomplete, and does not
have the disjunction property. The price to pay for the negation completeness
of our interactive proofs is their non-monotonicity and non-communality (for
singleton agent communities only). As a normal modal logic, LDiiP enjoys a
standard Kripke-semantics, which we justify by invoking the Axiom of Choice on
LiiP's and then construct in terms of a concrete oracle-computable function.
LDiiP's agent-centric internalised notion of proof can also be viewed as a
negation-complete disjunctive explicit refinement of standard KD45-belief, and
yields a disjunctive but negation-incomplete explicit refinement of
S4-provability.Comment: Expanded Introduction. Added Footnote 4. Corrected Corollary 3 and 4.
Continuation of arXiv:1208.184
On Properties of Update Sequences Based on Causal Rejection
We consider an approach to update nonmonotonic knowledge bases represented as
extended logic programs under answer set semantics. New information is
incorporated into the current knowledge base subject to a causal rejection
principle enforcing that, in case of conflicts, more recent rules are preferred
and older rules are overridden. Such a rejection principle is also exploited in
other approaches to update logic programs, e.g., in dynamic logic programming
by Alferes et al. We give a thorough analysis of properties of our approach, to
get a better understanding of the causal rejection principle. We review
postulates for update and revision operators from the area of theory change and
nonmonotonic reasoning, and some new properties are considered as well. We then
consider refinements of our semantics which incorporate a notion of minimality
of change. As well, we investigate the relationship to other approaches,
showing that our approach is semantically equivalent to inheritance programs by
Buccafurri et al. and that it coincides with certain classes of dynamic logic
programs, for which we provide characterizations in terms of graph conditions.
Therefore, most of our results about properties of causal rejection principle
apply to these approaches as well. Finally, we deal with computational
complexity of our approach, and outline how the update semantics and its
refinements can be implemented on top of existing logic programming engines.Comment: 59 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables, to be published in "Theory and
Practice of Logic Programming
Modeling Belief in Dynamic Systems, Part II: Revision and Update
The study of belief change has been an active area in philosophy and AI. In
recent years two special cases of belief change, belief revision and belief
update, have been studied in detail. In a companion paper (Friedman & Halpern,
1997), we introduce a new framework to model belief change. This framework
combines temporal and epistemic modalities with a notion of plausibility,
allowing us to examine the change of beliefs over time. In this paper, we show
how belief revision and belief update can be captured in our framework. This
allows us to compare the assumptions made by each method, and to better
understand the principles underlying them. In particular, it shows that Katsuno
and Mendelzon's notion of belief update (Katsuno & Mendelzon, 1991a) depends on
several strong assumptions that may limit its applicability in artificial
intelligence. Finally, our analysis allow us to identify a notion of minimal
change that underlies a broad range of belief change operations including
revision and update.Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for other files accompanying this articl
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
- …