Abstract
One of the most important problem encountered in knowledge based systems is the handling of exceptions in generic knowledge. A rule having exceptions (called also a default rule or a conditional assertion) is a piece of information of the following form “generally, if α is believed then β is also believed”, where a and, β are assumed here to be propositional logical formulas. A typical example of a conditional assertion is “generally, birds fly”. In the presence of incomplete information, one may jump to conclusions which are just plausible and can be revised in the light of new and complete information. For instance, given the default rules “generally, birds fly”, “generally, penguins do not fly”, and “all penguins are birds”, then from the incomplete information Tweety is a bird (but we do not know if Tweety is a penguin or not), we want to conclude that it flies. However, If we later learn that it is a penguin we should withdraw this conclusion. Classical logic is not appropriate for dealing with default information since we get inconsistency each time that an exceptional situation is observed. In the presence of inconsistency, classical logic infers trivial results. However, when there is no exceptions in our generic knowledge, classical logic is an efficient tool for correct reasoning.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
E. W. Adams. The logic of conditionals. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1975.
F. Baader and B. Hollunder. How to prefer more specific defaults in terminological default logic. In Proc. of the 13th Inter. Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’93), Aug. 28-Sept. 23, pp. 669–674, 1993.
S. Benferhat. Handling both hard rules and default rules in possibilistic logic. In Advances in Intelligent Computing (IPMU-94),B. Bouchon-Meunier et al.,eds. pp. 302–310. LNCS 945, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1995.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois and H. Prade. Representing default rules in possibilistic logic. In Proceedings of the 3rd Inter. Conf on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR192,J. Allen, R. Fikes and E. Sandewall, eds. Morgan-Kaufmann, Cambridge, MA, Oct 26–29, 1992.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade. Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge base. In Proc. 9th International Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence UAI193,Washington D.C., July 9–11, 1993.
S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang, H. Prade. Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In Proc. of the 13th Inter. Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAP93),Aug. 28-Sept. 23, pp. 640–645, 1993.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade. Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: a comparative study, Part 2: The prioritized case. Technical report IRIT n94155-R, Toulouse, 1995
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade. Coping with the limitations of rational inference in the framework of possibility theory. In Proc. of the 12th Conf on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, (E. Horvitz, F. Jensen, eds.), Portland, Oregon, Aug. 1–4, Morgan and Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp. 90–97, 1996.
G. Brewka. Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Proc. of the 11th Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI’89, 1989.
G. Brewka. Reasoning about priorities in default logic. In Proc. ofAAAI’94, 1994.
G. Brewka, J. Dix, K. Konolige. A Tutorial on Nonmonotonic Reasoning. In Proc. of the 2nd Inter. Workshop on Nonmonotonic and Inductive Logic, (Brewka, Jantke, Schmitt, eds.), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 659, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1–88, 1991.
C. Cayrol. On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In Proc of the 14th Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAP95), Montréal, pp. 1443–1448, 1995.
J. De Kleer. An assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence, 28, 127-162, 1996.
J. P. Delgrande and T. H. Schaub. A general approach to specificity in default reasoning. In Proc. of KR’94, 1994.
J. P. Delgrande and T. H. Schaub. Compiling reasoning with and about preferences into default logic. In Proc. of IJCAI-97, pp. 168–174, 1997.
D. Dubois and H. Prade. Necessity measures and the resolution principle. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 17, 474–478, 1987.
D. Dubois and H. Prade. (with the collaboration of Farreny H., MartinClouaire R., Testemale C.) Possibility Theory - An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty. Plenum Press, New York, 1988.
D. Dubois, H. Prade. Epistemic entrenchment and possibilistic logic, Artificial Intelligence, 223–239, 1991.
D. Dubois, J. Lang, H. Prade. Automated reasoning using possibilistic logic: semantics, belief revision and variable certainty weights. In Proc. of the 5th Workshop on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Windsor, Ontario, 81–87, 1989.
D. Dubois, J. Lang, H. Prade. Possibilistic logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 3 (D. M. Gabbay, eds.), Oxford University Press, 439–513, 1994.
D. Etherington. Formalizing nonmonotonic reasoning systems. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 41–85, 1987.
R. Fagin, J. D. Ullman and M. Y. Vardi. On the semantics of updates in database. In Proc. of the 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symp. on Princ. of Databases Systems, 1983.
S. E. Fahlman. NETL: A system for representing and using real-world knowledge. MIT press, Cambridge, MA, 1979.
L. Garcia. Implementation du traitement possibiliste des regles avec exceptions. Rapport DEA, Universite P. Sabatier, 1995.
P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux - Modeling the Dynamic of Epistemic States. MIT Press, 1988.
P. Geerts and D. Vermeir. A nonmonotonic reasoning formalism using implicit specificity information. In Proc. of the 2nd Inter. Workshop on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (1993), MIT Press, p. 380–396, 1993.
H. Geffner. Default Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Theories. MIT Press, 1992.
M. Goldszmidt. Qualitative Probabilities: A Normative Framework for Commonsense Reasoning. PhD Thesis, University of California, 1992.
M. Goldszmidt, P. Morris, J. Pearl. A maximum entropy approach to non-monotonic reasoning. In Proc. of the National American Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’90), pp. 646–652, 1990.
M. Goldszmidt, J. Pearl. On the relation between rational closure and System-Z. In Proc. 3rd Inter. Workshopon Nonmonotonic Reasoning, South Lake Tahoe, pp. 130140, 1991.
E. Gregoire. Skeptical theories of inheritance and nonmonotonic logics. In Proc. of the Fourth International Symposium of Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pp. 430–438, North Holland, 1989.
J. F. Horty Some direct theories of nonmonotonic inheritance. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 3 (D.M. Gabbay, eds.), Oxford University Press, pp. 111–187, 1994.
S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, M. Magidor. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44, 167–207, 1990.
P. Lamarre. Etude des raisonnements non-monotones: Apports des logiques des conditionnels et des logiques modales. PhD Thesis, Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, 1992.
J. Lang. Logique possibiliste: aspects formels, dduction automatique, et applications, PhD thesis, University of Toulouse, 1991.
Léa Sombé. (P. Besnard, M. O. Cordier, D. Dubois, L. Farinas del Cerro, C. Froidevaux, Y. Moinard, H. Prade, C. Shwind and P. Siegel). Reasoning under incomplete information in Artificial intelligence: A comparison of formalisms using a single example. Int. J. of Intelligent systems, 5, 323–471, 1991.
D. Lehmann. What does a conditional knowledge base entail? In Proc. of 1st Inter. Cont. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’89), Toronto, pp. 357–367, 1989.
D. Lehmann, M. Magidor. What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence, 55, 1–60, 1992.
J. MacCarthy. Circumscription–a form of nonmonotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 27–39, 1980.
Y. Moinard. Donner la préférence au défaut le plus spécifique. In Proc. of 6th symposium AFCET-RFIA, Antibes, pp. 1123–1132, 1987.
Y. Moinard. Preference by specificity in default logic. Technical report, September, 1990.
L. Morgenstern. Inheritance comes of age: applying nonmonotonic techniques to problems in industry. In Proc. of IJCAI-97, pp. 1613–1621, 1997.
D. Nute. Defeasible logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 3 (D.M. Gabbay, eds.), Oxford University Press, pp. 353–395, 1994.
J. Pearl. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan and Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988.
J. Pearl. System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to default reasoning. In Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, M. Vardi, ed. pp. 121–135. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1990.
D.L. Poole. On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. In Proc. of the 9th Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’85), Los Angeles, CA, Aug. 18–23, pp. 144–147, 1985.
J. L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481–518, 1987.
J. L. Pollock. How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence, 57, 1–42, 1992.
R. Reiter. A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 81–132, 1980.
R. Reiter and G. Criscuolo. On interacting defaults. In Proc. of MCAT 81, 1981.
B. Selman. Tractable defeasible reasoning. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, 1990.
B. Selman and H. Levesque. The tractability of path-based inheritance. In Proc. of Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’89), 1989.
Y. Shoham. Reasoning About Change -Time and Causation from the standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1988.
G. R. Simari, R. P. Loui. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53, 125–157, 1992.
L. Stein. Resolving ambiguity in nonmonotonic reasoning. PhD Thesis, Brown University, 1990.
S. K. Tan and J. Pearl. Specificity and inheritance in default reasoning. In Proc. of Inter. Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95), pp. 1480–1486, 1995.
S. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1956.
D. S. Touretzky. Implicit Ordering of Defaults in Inheritance Systems. In Proc. of AAA/`84, University of Texas at Austin, 1984.
D. Touretzky. The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems. Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1986.
D. S. Touretzky, J. Horty, and R. Thomason. A clash of intuitions: the current state of nonmonotonic multiple inheritance systems. In Proceedings of Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’87), pp. 476–482, Milano, 1987.
G. Wagner. Neutralization and Preemption in Extended Logic Programs. In Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, Procs. 4th International Conference, LPAR, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 1993, (A. Voronkov, ed), LNAI 698, Springer Verlag, pp. 333–344, 1993.
L.A. Zadeh. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1, 3–28, 1978.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Benferhat, S. (2000). Computing Specificity in Default Reasoning. In: Kohlas, J., Moral, S. (eds) Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems. Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1737-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1737-3_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5603-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1737-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive