Minds and Machines

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 79–117 | Cite as

Formal Nonmonotonic Theories and Properties of Human Defeasible Reasoning

  • Marco Ragni
  • Christian Eichhorn
  • Tanja Bock
  • Gabriele Kern-Isberner
  • Alice Ping Ping Tse
Article
  • 173 Downloads

Abstract

The knowledge representation and reasoning of both humans and artificial systems often involves conditionals. A conditional connects a consequence which holds given a precondition. It can be easily recognized in natural languages with certain key words, like “if” in English. A vast amount of literature in both fields, both artificial intelligence and psychology, deals with the questions of how such conditionals can be best represented and how these conditionals can model human reasoning. On the other hand, findings in the psychology of reasoning, such as those in the Suppression Task, have led to a paradigm shift from the monotonicity assumptions in human inferences towards nonmonotonic reasoning. Nonmonotonic reasoning is sensitive for information change, that is, inferences are drawn cautiously such that retraction of previous information is not required with the addition of new information. While many formalisms of nonmonotonic reasoning have been proposed in the field of Artificial Intelligence, their capability to model properties of human reasoning has not yet been extensively investigated. In this paper, we analyzed systematically from both a formal and an empirical perspective the power of formal nonmonotonic systems to model (i) possible explicit defeaters, as in the Suppression Task, and (ii) more implicit conditional rules that trigger nonmonotonic reasoning by the keywords in such rules. The results indicated that the classical evaluation for the correctness of inferences has to be extended in the three major aspects (i) regarding the inference system, (ii) the knowledge base, and (iii) possible assumed exceptions for the rule.

Keywords

Defeasible reasoning Nonmonotonic logic Suppression task Cognitive modeling Reasoning Human reasoning Knowledge representation Cognitive systems 

References

  1. Adams, E. (1965). The logic of conditionals. Inquiry, 8(1–4), 166–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoniou, G. (1997). Nonmonotonic reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Baratgin, J., Over, D., & Politzer, G. (2014). New psychological paradigm for conditionals and general de finetti tables. Mind & Language, 29(1), 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beierle, C., Eichhorn, C., & Kern-Isberner, G. (2016). Sceptical Inference based on C-representation and its characterization as a constraint satisfaction problem. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems (FoIKS 2016), Lecture Notes of Computer Science (Vol. 9616, pp. 65–82). Berlin, DE: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Beierle, C., & Kern-Isberner, G. (2014). Methoden wissensbasierter Systeme, 5. überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Wiesbaden, DE: Springer Vieweg (in German).Google Scholar
  7. Bochman, A. (2001). A logical theory of nonmonotonic inference and belief change. Berlin, DE: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonnefon, J. F., Da Silva Neves, R., Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2006). Background default knowledge and causality ascriptions. In: G. Brewka, S. Coradeschi, A. Perini, & P. Traverso (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2006), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (Vol. 141, pp. 11–15). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  9. Byrne, R. M. (1989). Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition, 31, 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne, R. M. (1991). Can valid inferences be suppressed? Cognition, 39(1), 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne, R. M., Espino, O., & Santamaria, C. (1999). Counterexamples and the suppression of inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Da Silva Neves, R., Bonnefon, J. F., & Raufaste, E. (2002). An empirical test of patterns for nonmonotonic inference. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34(1–3), 107–130.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietz, E., Hölldobler, S., & Ragni, M. (2012). A computational approach to the suppression task. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1500–1505). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  14. Dietz, E. A., & Hölldobler, S. (2015). A new computational logic approach to reason with conditionals. In: International conference on logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning (pp. 265–278). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1996). Conditional objects as nonmonotonicConsequence relations. In Principles of knowledge representationand reasoning: Proceedings of the 4th international conference (KR’94) (pp. 170–177). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2015). Possibility theory and its applications: Where do we stand?. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. de Finetti, B. (1974). Theory of probability (Vol. 1,2). New York, NY: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Fitting, M. (1985). A Kripke–Kleene semantics for logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 2(4), 295–312.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Gabbay, D. (1985). Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems. In K. R. Apt (Ed.), Logics and models of concurrent systems (pp. 439–457). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. García, A. J., & Simari, G. R. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4, 95–138.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Gazzo Castañeda, E. L., & Knauff, M. (2016). Defeasible reasoning with legal conditionals. Memory & Cognition, 44(3), 499–517. doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0574-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldszmidt, M., & Pearl, J. (1996). Qualitative probabilities for default reasoning, belief revision, and causal modeling. Artificial Intelligence, 84(1–2), 57–112.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Halpern, J. Y. (2005). Reasoning about uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Hölldobler, S., & Kencana Ramli, C. D. (2009a). Logic programs under three-valued Łukasiewicz semantics. In P. M. Hill, & D. S. Warren (Eds.), Logic programming, 25th international conference, ICLP 2009, LNCS (Vol. 5649, pp. 464–478). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Hölldobler, S., & Kencana Ramli, C. D. (2009b). Logics and networks for human reasoning. In C. Alippi, M. M. Polycarpou, C. G.Panayiotou, & G. Ellinas (Eds.), International conference on artificial neural networks, ICANN 2009, part II, LNCS (Vol. 5769, pp. 85–94). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson-Laird, P., & Byrne, R. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109(4), 646–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kern-Isberner, G. (2001). Conditionals in nonmonotonic reasoning and belief revision. No. 2087 in LNCS. Berlin, DE: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Kern-Isberner, G. (2004). A thorough axiomatization of a principle of conditional preservation in belief revision. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 40, 127–164.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Kern-Isberner, G., & Eichhorn, C. (2012). A structural base for conditional reasoning. In: Human reasoning and automated deduction—KI 2012 workshop proceedings (pp. 25–32).Google Scholar
  31. Klauer, K. C., Singmann, H., & Kellen, D. (2015). Parametric order constraints in multinomial processing tree models: An extension of Knapp and Batchelder (2004). Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 64, 1–7.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Klauer, K. C., Stahl, C., & Erdfelder, E. (2007). The abstract selection task: New data and an almost comprehensive model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 680–703.Google Scholar
  33. Kleene, S. C. (1952). Introduction to metamathematics. Amsterdam: Bibl. Matematica.MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., & Magidor, M. (1990). Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44(1–2), 167–207.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Kripke, S. A. (1972). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuhnmünch, G., & Ragni, M. (2014). Can formal non-monotonic systems properly describe human reasoning? In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1222–1227). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  37. Lehmann, D. J., & Magidor, M. (1992). What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence, 55(1), 1–60.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Łukasiewicz, J. (1920). O logice trójwartościowej. Ruch Filozoficzny5, 169–171 (1920). English translation: On three-valued logic. In J. Łukasiewicz & L. Borkowski (Eds.) (1990). Selected works (pp. 87–88). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  40. Łukasiewicz, T. (2005). Weak nonmonotonic probabilistic logics. Artificial Intelligence, 168(1–2), 119–161.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Makinson, D. (1994). General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (Vol. 3, pp. 35–110). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2016). Probabilities, causation, and logic programming in conditional reasoning: Reply to Stenning and van Lambalgen. Thinking & Reasoning, 22(3), 336–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pearl, J. (1990). System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. In R. Parikh (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK1990) (pp. 121–135). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  45. Pfeifer, N., & Kleiter, G. D. (2005). Coherence and nonmonotonicity in human reasoning. Synthese, 146(1–2), 93–109.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Politzer, G. (2005). Uncertainty and the suppression of inferences. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(1), 5–33.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ragni, M., Eichhorn, C., & Kern-Isberner, G. (2016). Simulating human inferences in the light of new information: A formal analysis. In S. Kambhampati (Ed.). Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16) (pp. 2604–2610).Google Scholar
  48. Ragni, M., & Knauff, M. (2013). A theory and a computational model of spatial reasoning with preferred mental models. Psychological Review, 120(3), 561–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ragni, M., Singmann, H., & Steinlein, E. M. (2014). Theory comparison for generalized quantifiers. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1330–1335). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  50. Ramsey, F. P. (1929). General propositions and causality. In Philosophical papers (pp. 145–163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1–2), 81–132.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Singmann, H., & Kellen, D. (2013). MPTinR: Analysis of multinomial processing tree models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 560–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Skovgaard-Olsen, N., Singmann, H., & Klauer, K. C. (2016). The relevance effect and conditionals. Cognition, 150, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spohn, W. (1988). Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In Causation in decision, belief change and statistics: Proceedings of the Irvine Conference on Probability and Causation, the Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science (Vol. 42, pp. 105–134). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Spohn, W. (2012). The laws of belief: Ranking theory and its philosophical applications. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stenning, K., & Lambalgen, M. (2008). Human reasoning and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Thorn, P. D., Eichhorn, C., Kern-Isberner, G., & Schurz, G. (2015). Qualitative probabilistic inference with default inheritance for exceptional subclasses. In C. Beierle, G. Kern-Isberner, M. Ragni, & F. Stolzenburg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Dynamics of Knowledge and Belief (DKB-2015) and the 4th Workshop KI & Kognition (KIK-2015) co-located with 38th German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI-2015), CEUR Workshop Proceedings (Vol. 1444).Google Scholar
  58. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group on the Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Institut für Informatik, Technische FakultätAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Technische Universität Dortmund, Department of Computer ScienceChair I - Information EngineeringDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations