Semantics for Probabilistic Inference

A number of writers(Joseph Halpern and Fahiem Bacchus among them) have offered semantics for formal languages in which inferences concerning probabilities can be made. Our concern is different. This paper provides a formalization of nonmonotonic inferences in which the conclusion is supported only to a certain degree. Such inferences are clearly 'invalid' since they must allow the falsity of a conclusion even when the premises are true. Nevertheless, such inferences can be characterized both syntactically and semantically. The 'premises' of probabilistic arguments are sets of statements (as in a database or knowledge base), the conclusions categorical statements in the language. We provide standards for both this form of inference, for which high probability is required, and for an inference in which the conclusion is qualified by an intermediate interval of support.Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI1992

An Embedding-based Approach to Inconsistency-tolerant Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies

Inconsistency handling is an important issue in knowledge management. Especially in ontology engineering, logical inconsistencies may occur during ontology construction. A natural way to reason with an inconsistent ontology is to utilize the maximal consistent subsets of the ontology. However, previous studies on selecting maximum consistent subsets have rarely considered the semantics of the axioms, which may result in irrational inference. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to reasoning with inconsistent ontologies in description logics based on the embeddings of axioms. We first give a method for turning axioms into distributed semantic vectors to compute the semantic connections between the axioms. We then define an embedding-based method for selecting the maximum consistent subsets and use it to define an inconsistency-tolerant inference relation. We show the rationality of our inference relation by considering some logical properties. Finally, we conduct experiments on several ontologies to evaluate the reasoning power of our inference relation. The experimental results show that our embedding-based method can outperform existing inconsistency-tolerant reasoning methods based on maximal consistent subsets.Comment: 9 pages,1 figur

A Lightweight Defeasible Description Logic in Depth: Quantification in Rational Reasoning and Beyond

Description Logics (DLs) are increasingly successful knowledge representation formalisms, useful for any application requiring implicit derivation of knowledge from explicitly known facts. A prominent example domain benefiting from these formalisms since the 1990s is the biomedical field. This area contributes an intangible amount of facts and relations between low- and high-level concepts such as the constitution of cells or interactions between studied illnesses, their symptoms and remedies. DLs are well-suited for handling large formal knowledge repositories and computing inferable coherences throughout such data, relying on their well-founded first-order semantics. In particular, DLs of reduced expressivity have proven a tremendous worth for handling large ontologies due to their computational tractability. In spite of these assets and prevailing influence, classical DLs are not well-suited to adequately model some of the most intuitive forms of reasoning. The capability for abductive reasoning is imperative for any field subjected to incomplete knowledge and the motivation to complete it with typical expectations. When such default expectations receive contradicting evidence, an abductive formalism is able to retract previously drawn, conflicting conclusions. Common examples often include human reasoning or a default characterisation of properties in biology, such as the normal arrangement of organs in the human body. Treatment of such defeasible knowledge must be aware of exceptional cases - such as a human suffering from the congenital condition situs inversus - and therefore accommodate for the ability to retract defeasible conclusions in a non-monotonic fashion. Specifically tailored non-monotonic semantics have been continuously investigated for DLs in the past 30 years. A particularly promising approach, is rooted in the research by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor for preferential (propositional) logics and Rational Closure (RC). The biggest advantages of RC are its well-behaviour in terms of formal inference postulates and the efficient computation of defeasible entailments, by relying on a tractable reduction to classical reasoning in the underlying formalism. A major contribution of this work is a reorganisation of the core of this reasoning method, into an abstract framework formalisation. This framework is then easily instantiated to provide the reduction method for RC in DLs as well as more advanced closure operators, such as Relevant or Lexicographic Closure. In spite of their practical aptitude, we discovered that all reduction approaches fail to provide any defeasible conclusions for elements that only occur in the relational neighbourhood of the inspected elements. More explicitly, a distinguishing advantage of DLs over propositional logic is the capability to model binary relations and describe aspects of a related concept in terms of existential and universal quantification. Previous approaches to RC (and more advanced closures) are not able to derive typical behaviour for the concepts that occur within such quantification. The main contribution of this work is to introduce stronger semantics for the lightweight DL EL_bot with the capability to infer the expected entailments, while maintaining a close relation to the reduction method. We achieve this by introducing a new kind of first-order interpretation that allocates defeasible information on its elements directly. This allows to compare the level of typicality of such interpretations in terms of defeasible information satisfied at elements in the relational neighbourhood. A typicality preference relation then provides the means to single out those sets of models with maximal typicality. Based on this notion, we introduce two types of nested rational semantics, a sceptical and a selective variant, each capable of deriving the missing entailments under RC for arbitrarily nested quantified concepts. As a proof of versatility for our new semantics, we also show that the stronger Relevant Closure, can be imbued with typical information in the successors of binary relations. An extensive investigation into the computational complexity of our new semantics shows that the sceptical nested variant comes at considerable additional effort, while the selective semantics reside in the complexity of classical reasoning in the underlying DL, which remains tractable in our case

Extensions of choice behaviour

Consumer Choice

Rationalizing Boundedly Rational Choice

A Rational Shortlist Method (RSM) translates into economic language some sequential choice heuristics studied in psychology. We show that the use of this boundedly rational procedure can be detected from observed choice data through tests that are very similar to those used to detect `rational' choice (such as Samuelson's WARP). Yet, RSMs are compatible with some highly `irrational' patterns of choice observed in experiments, such as pairwise cycles. We also provide partial results on a generalization of RSMs.rationalizability of choice, bounded rationality, intransitive choice, incomplete preferences, menu dependence

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

Consumer Choice and Revealed Bounded Rationality

We study two boundedly rational procedures in consumer behavior. We show that these procedures can be detected by conditions on observable demand data of the same type as standard revealed preference axioms. This provides the basis for a non-parametric analysis of boundedly rational consumer behavior mirroring the classical one for utility maximization.Bounded rationality, Revealed preference, Consumer choice