Synthese

, Volume 176, Issue 2, pp 243–274 | Cite as

Well-founded semantics for defeasible logic

Article

Abstract

Fixpoint semantics are provided for ambiguity blocking and propagating variants of Nute’s defeasible logic. The semantics are based upon the well-founded semantics for logic programs. It is shown that the logics are sound with respect to their counterpart semantics and complete for locally finite theories. Unlike some other nonmonotonic reasoning formalisms such as Reiter’s default logic, the two defeasible logics are directly skeptical and so reject floating conclusions. For defeasible theories with transitive priorities on defeasible rules, the logics are shown to satisfy versions of Cut and Cautious Monotony. For theories with either conflict sets closed under strict rules or strict rules closed under transposition, a form of Consistency Preservation is shown to hold. The differences between the two logics and other variants of defeasible logic—specifically those presented by Billington, Antoniou, Governatori, and Maher—are discussed.

Keywords

Defeasible reasoning Nonmonotonic logic Well-founded semantics Ambiguity propagation Floating conclusions Cut Cautious monotony Consistency preservation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antonelli G.A. (2005) Grounded consequence for defeasible logic. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoniou G. (2006) Defeasible reasoning: a discussion of some intuitions. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 21(6): 545–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., & Maher, M. J. (2000, April). A flexible framework for defeasible logics. In Proceedings of the 8th workshop on non-monotonic reasoning, Breckenridge, Colorado.Google Scholar
  4. Antoniou G., Billington D., Governatori G., Maher M.J. (2001) Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2): 255–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antoniou G., Billington D., Governatori G., Maher M.J. (2006) Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6(6): 703–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M. J., & Rock, A. (2000). A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In W. Horn (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th European conference on artificial intelligence, Berlin, Germany (pp. 459–463). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  7. Billington D. (1993) Defeasible logic is stable. Journal of Logic and Computation 3(4): 379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billington D., De Coster K., Nute D. (1990) A modular translation from defeasible nets to defeasible logics. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 2: 151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewka G. (1996) Well-founded semantics for extended logic programs with dynamic preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4: 19–36Google Scholar
  10. Brewka, G. (2001). On the relationship between defeasible logic and well-founded semantics. In T. Eiter, W. Faber & T. Truszczynski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2173, pp. 121–132). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Caminada, M. (2006, May). Well-founded semantics for semi-normal extended logic programs. In Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning, Lake District, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Covington M.A., Nute D., Vellino A. (1997) Prolog programming in depth. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  13. Donnelly, S. (1999). Semantics, soundness, and incompleteness for a defeasible logic. Master Thesis, The University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  14. Gabbay D. (1985) Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems. In: Apt K. (eds) Logics and models of concurrent systems. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 439–457Google Scholar
  15. Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1988). The stable model semantics for logic programming. In K. Bowen & A. Kowalski (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on logic programming, Seattle, Washington (pp. 1070–1080). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gelfond M., Lifschitz V. (1991) Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9(3/4): 365–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Governatori G., Maher M., Antoniou G., Billington D. (2004) Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5): 675–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horty J. (2002) Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artificial Intelligence 135(1–2): 55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horty J., Thomason R., Touretzky D. (1990) A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks. Artificial Intelligence 42: 311–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maher, M., & Governatori, G. (1999). A semantic decomposition of defeasible logics. In Proceedings of the 16th national conference on artificial intelligence, Orlando, FL (pp. 299–305). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  21. Maher M., Rock A., Antoniou G., Billington D., Miller T. (2001) Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 10(4): 483–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maier, F., & Nute, D. (2006). Ambiguity propagating defeasible logic and the well-founded semantics. In M. Fisher, W. van der Hoek, B. Konev, & A. Lisitsa (Eds.), JELIA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4160, pp. 306–318). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Makinson, D. (1994). General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In D. Gabbay & C. Hogger (Eds.), Handbook of logic for artificial intelligence and logic programming (Vol. III, pp. 35–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Makinson D., Schlechta K. (1991) Floating conclusions and zombie paths: two deep difficulties in the ‘directly skeptical’ approach to inheritance nets. Artificial Intelligence 48: 199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore R.C. (1985) Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence 25(1): 75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nute, D. (1986). LDR: A logic for defeasible reasoning. ACMC research report 01-0013, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  27. Nute, D. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. In Proceedings of the 20th Hawaii international conference on system science, University of Hawaii (pp. 470–477).Google Scholar
  28. Nute D. (1992) Basic defeasible logic. In: del Cerro L.F., Penttonen M. (eds) Intensional logics for programming.. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 125–154Google Scholar
  29. Nute, D. (1994). Defeasible logic. In D. Gabbay & C. Hogger (Eds.), Handbook of logic for artificial intelligence and logic programming (Vol. III, pp. 353–395). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nute D. (1999) Norms, priorities, and defeasibility. In: McNamara P., Prakken H. (eds) Norms, logics and information systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 201–218Google Scholar
  31. Nute, D. (2001). Defeasible logic: Theory, implementation, and applications. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on applications of prolog (pp. 87–114). Tokyo: IF Computer Japan.Google Scholar
  32. Nute, D., Billington, D., & De Coster, K. (1989). Defeasible logic and inheritance hierarchies with exceptions. In Proceedings of the Tübingen workshop on semantic nets and nonmonotonic reasoning, University of Tübingen (Vol. I, pp. 69–82).Google Scholar
  33. Pollock J.L. (1974) Knowledge and justification. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollock J.L. (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4): 481–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prakken, H. (2002). Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: Some case studies. In S. Benferhat & E. Giunchiglia (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (pp. 91–99).Google Scholar
  36. Reiter R. (1980) A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13: 81–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schaub, T., & Wang, K. (2001). Preferred well-founded semantics for logic programming by alternating fixpoints: Preliminary report. In S. Benferhat & E. Giunchiglia (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning, Toulouse, France (pp. 238–246).Google Scholar
  38. Stein L.A. (1991). Resolving ambiguity in nonmonotonic reasoning. Dissertation, Brown University.Google Scholar
  39. Tarski A. (1955) A lattice theoretic fixpoint theorem and its application. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5: 285–309Google Scholar
  40. Van Gelder A., Ross K.A., Schlipf J. (1991) The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM 38(3): 620–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida Institute for Human and Machine CognitionPensacolaUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Artificial IntelligenceThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations