Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 341–367

Temporalizing Epistemic Default Logic

  • Wiebe van der Hoek
  • John-Jules Meyer
  • Jan Treur

Abstract

We present an epistemic default logic, based on the metaphore of a meta-level architecture. Upward reflection is formalized by a nonmonotonic entailment relation, based on the objective facts that are either known or unknown at the object level. Then, the meta (monotonic) reasoning process generates a number of “default-beliefs” of object-level formulas. We extend this framework by proposing a mechanism to reflect these defaults down. Such a reflection is seen as essentially having a temporal flavour: defaults derived at the meta-level are projected as facts in a “next” object level state. In this way, we obtain temporal models for default reasoning in meta-level formalisms which can be conceived as labeled branching trees. Thus, descending the tree corresponds to shifts in time that model downward reflection, whereas the branching of the tree corresponds to ways of combining possible defaults. All together, this yields an operational or procedural semantics of reasoning by default, which admits one to reason about it by means of branching-time temporal logic. Finally, we define sceptical and credulous entailment relations based on these temporal models and we characterize Reiter extensions in our semantics.

Epistemic states default reasoning meta-level architectures temporal models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Doherty, P., 1991, “NM3 — A three-valued cumulative non-monotonic formalism,” pp. 196–211 in Logics in AI, J. van Eijck, ed., LNCS 478, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Engelfriet, J. and Treur, J., 1993, “A temporal model theory for default logic,” pp. 91–96 in Proc. 2nd European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, ECSQARU '93, M. Clarke, R. Kruse, and S. Moral, eds., Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Finger, M. and Gabbay, D., 1992, “Adding a temporal dimension to a logic system,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1, 203–233.Google Scholar
  4. Giunchiglia, E., Traverso, P., and Giunchiglia, F., 1993, “Multicontext systems as a specification framework for complex reasoning systems,” pp. 45–72 in Formal Specification of Complex Reasoning Systems, J. Treur and Th. Wetter, eds., Chichester: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  5. Hughes, G.E. and Cresswell, M.J., 1968, An Introduction to Modal Logic, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  6. Halpern, J.Y. and Moses, Y.O., 1984, “Towards a theory of knowledge and ignorance,” pp. 125–143 in Proc. Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, AAAI.Google Scholar
  7. Meyer, J.—J. Ch. and van der Hoek, W., 1991, “Non-monotonic reasoning by monotonic means,” pp. 399–411 in Logics in AI (Proc. JELIA '90), J. van Eijck, ed., LNCS 478, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Meyer, J.—J. Ch. and van der Hoek, W., 1995, “A default logic based on epistemic states,” Fundamentae Informatica 23(1), 33–65.Google Scholar
  9. Meyer, J.—J. Ch. and van der Hoek, W., 1995, Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 41, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Moore, R.C., 1985, “Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic,” Artificial Intelligence 25, 75–94.Google Scholar
  11. Reiter, R., 1980, “A logic for default reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132.Google Scholar
  12. Reiter, R., 1987, “Nonmonotonic reasoning,” Annual Reviews of Computer Science 2, 147–187.Google Scholar
  13. Shoham, Y., 1987, “A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics,” pp. 388–392 in Proceedings 10th IJCAI, J. McDermott (ed.), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  14. Shoham, Y., 1988, Reasoning about Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Tan, Y.—H. and Treur, J., 1991, “A bimodular approach to nonmonotonic reasoning,” pp. 461–475 in Proc. WOCFAI'91, M. DeGlas and D. Gabbay, eds., Paris: Angkor.Google Scholar
  16. Tan, Y.—H. and Treur, J., 1992, “Constructive default logic and the control of defeasible reasoning,” pp. 299–303 in Proc. of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'92, B. Neumann, ed., Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Treur, J., 1994, “Temporal semantics of metalevel architectures for dynamic control of reasoning,” pp. 353–377 in Proc. META'94, Pisa, LNCS 883, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. van der Hoek, W., Meyer J.—J. Ch., and Treur, J., 1994, “Formal semantics of temporal epistemic reflection,” pp. 332–352 in Proc. META'94, Pisa, LNCS 883, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Weyhrauch, R.W., 1980, “Prolegomena to a theory of mechanized formal reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence J. 13, 133–170.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wiebe van der Hoek
    • 1
  • John-Jules Meyer
    • 1
  • Jan Treur
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceFree University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations