Skip to main content
Log in

Knowledge-Driven versus Data-Driven Logics

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The starting point of this work is the gap between two distinct traditions in information engineering: knowledge representation and data-driven modelling. The first tradition emphasizes logic as a tool for representing beliefs held by an agent. The second tradition claims that the main source of knowledge is made of observed data, and generally does not use logic as a modelling tool. However, the emergence of fuzzy logic has blurred the boundaries between these two traditions by putting forward fuzzy rules as a Janus-faced tool that may represent knowledge, as well as approximate non-linear functions representing data. This paper lays bare logical foundations of data-driven reasoning whereby a set of formulas is understood as a set of observed facts rather than a set of beliefs. Several representation frameworks are considered from this point of view: classical logic, possibility theory, belief functions, epistemic logic, fuzzy rule-based systems. Mamdani's fuzzy rules are recovered as belonging to the data-driven view. In possibility theory a third set-function, different from possibility and necessity plays a key role in the data-driven view, and corresponds to a particular modality in epistemic logic. A bi-modal logic system is presented which handles both beliefs and observations, and for which a completeness theorem is given. Lastly, our results may shed new light in deontic logic and allow for a distinction between explicit and implicit permission that standard deontic modal logics do not often emphasize.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alchourron, C., 1993, “Philosophical foundations of deontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionals,” pp. 43-84 in Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, J.J.C. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa, eds., New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A.R., 1958, “A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic,” Mind 67, 100-103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C., 1992, “Conditional logics for default reasoning and belief revision,” Technical Report KRR-TR-92-1, Knowledge Representation and Reasoning series, University of Toronto, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chellas, B.F., 1980, Modal Logic: An Introduction, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.Ch., and Wieringa, R., 1996, “Free choice and contextually permitted actions,” Studia Logica 57, 1993-2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D. and Prade, H., 1988, Possibility Theory-An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty, New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D. and Prade, H., 1991a, “Certainty and uncertainty of (vague), knowledge and generalized dependencies in fuzzy data bases,” pp. 239-249 in Proceedings of the 1st International Fuzzy Engineering Symposium (IFES'91), Yokohama, Japan, November 13-15, Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D. and Prade, H., 1991b, “Epistemic entrenchment and possibilistic logic,” Artificial Intelligence 50, 223-239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D. and Prade, H., 1992, “Possibility theory as a basis for preference propagation in automated reasoning,” pp. 821-832 in Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems 1992, (FUZZ-IEEE'92), San Diego, CA, March 8-12, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D. and Prade, H., 1996, “What are fuzzy rules and how to use them,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 84, 169-185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Lang, J., and Prade, H., 1994, “Possibilistic logic,” pp. 439-513 in Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 3, D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, J.A. Robinson, and D. Nute, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P., 1988, Knowledge in Flux-Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goranko, R., 1990, “Completeness and incompleteness in the bimodal base calL(R,-R),” pp. 311-326 in Mathematical Logic, I. Petkov, ed., New York: PlenumPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humberstone, I.L., 1983, “Inaccessible worlds,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logics 24(3), 346-352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., 1973, “Free choice permission,” Proceedings Aristotelian Society N.S. 74, 57-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, H.J., 1990, “All I know: A study in autoepistemic logic,” Artificial Intelligence 42, 263-309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liau, C.J., 1997, “A semantics for logics of preference based on possibility theory,” pp. 243-248 in Proceedings of the 7th International Fuzzy Systems Association, IFSA'97) Congress, Prague, June 25-29, 1997, Prague: Academia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamdani, E.H., 1977, “Application of fuzzy logic to approximate reasoning using linguistic systems,” IEEE Trans. Comput. 26, 1182-1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.J.C., 1988, “A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29(1), 109-136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.J.C. and Wieringa, R.J., 1993, “Deontic logic: A concise overview,” pp. 3-16 in Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, J.J.C. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa, eds., New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nebel, B., 1989, “A knowledge level analysis of belief revision,” pp. 301-311 in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91), Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 18-18, R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque, and R. Reiter, eds., San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prade, H. and Yager, R.R., 1994, “Estimations of expectedness and potential surprise in possibility theory,” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 2(4), 417-428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, E., 1978, “On possibility-qualification in natural languages,” Information Sciences 15, 45-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, G., 1976, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smets, P., 1988, “Belief functions,” pp. 253-286 in Non-Standard Logics for Approximate Reasoning, P. Smets, A. Mamdani, D. Dubois, and H. Prade, eds., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smets, P. and Kennes, R., 1994, “The transferable belief model,” Artificial Intelligence 66, 191-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Torre, L., 1997, “Defeasibility in preference-based deontic logic,” Ph.D. Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G.H., 1951, “Deontic logic,” Mind 60, 1-15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voorbraak, F., 1993, “As far as I know-Epistemic logic and uncertainty,” Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, J., 1995, “Fuzzy control revisited-Why is it working?,” pp. 219-243 in Advances in Fuzzy Theory and Technology-Vol. III, P.P.Wang, ed., Durham, NC: Duke University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L.A., 1978, “PRUF-A meaning representation language for natural languages,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 10, 395-460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L.A., 1979, “A theory of approximate reasoning,” pp. 149-194 in Machine Intelligence, Vol. 9, J.E. Hayes, D. Michie, and L.I. Mikulich, eds., New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dubois, D., Hájek, P. & Prade, H. Knowledge-Driven versus Data-Driven Logics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9, 65–89 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370109997

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370109997

Navigation