FAPR 1996: Practical Reasoning pp 637-649 | Cite as

System J — Revision entailment

Default reasoning through ranking measure updates
  • Emil Weydert
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1085)

Abstract

This paper introduces a new default reasoning paradigm based on Spohn's revision methodology for ranking measures, i.e. Jeffrey-conditionalization. Its main features are representation independence, robustness, strong inheritance properties together with a quasi-probabilistic justification and the satisfaction of Lehmann's postulates for preferential consequence relations.

Keywords

Propositional Variable Inference Relation Ranking Measure Nonmonotonic Reasoning Default Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Benferhat et al. 93]
    S. Benferhart, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang, H. Prade. Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In Proceedings of IJCAI 93, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [Benferhat et al. 95]
    S. Benferhart, A Saffiotti, P. Smets. In Proceedings of UAI 95, Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. [Bacchus et al. 93]
    F. Bacchus, A.J. Grove, J. Y. Halpern. Statistical foundations for default reasoning. In Proceedings of IJCAI 93, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [Dubois and Prade 88]
    D. Dubois, H. Prade. Possibility Theory. Plenum Press, New York 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [Gabbay 85]
    D. Gabbay. Theoretical foundations for nonmonotonic reasoning in expert systems. In Logics and models of concurrent systems, ed. K.R. Apt. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. [Geffner and Pearl 92]
    H. Geffner, J. Pearl. Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 53: 209–244, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [Kraus et al. 90]
    M. Goldszmidt, P. Morris, J. Pearl. A maximum entropy approach to nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of AAAI 90. Morgan Kaufmann 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [Benferhat et al. 93]
    S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, M. Magidor. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44: 167–207, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Lehmann 92]
    D. Lehmann. Another perspective on default reasoning. Technical report TR-92-12, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. [Lehmann and Magidor 92]
    D. Lehmann, M. Magidor. What does a conditional knowledge base entail ? Artificial Intelligence, 55:1–60, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Makinson 94]
    D. Makinson. General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming (vol II), eds. D.Gabbay, C. Hogger. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [Pearl 90]
    J. Pearl. System Z: a natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. Proc. of the Third Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  13. [Spohn 90]
    W. Spohn. A general non-probabilistic theory of inductive reasoning. In R.D. Shachter et al. (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [Weydert 91]
    E. Weydert. Qualitative magnitude reasoning. Towards a new semantics for default reasoning. In J. Dix et al. (eds.), Nonmonotonic and Inductive Reasoning. Springer-Verlag 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [Weydert 93]
    E. Weydert. Plausible inference for default conditionals. In Proceedings of ECSQARU 93. Springer, Berlin, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. [Weydert 94]
    E. Weydert. General belief measures. In Tenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. [Weydert 95]
    E. Weydert. Defaults and infinitesimals. Defeasible inference by nonarchimedean entropy maximization. In Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [Weydert 95a]
    E. Weydert. Default entailment. A preferential construction semantics for defeasible inference. In Dreschler-Fischer, Pribbenow (eds.) Proceedings of KI-95. Springer-Verlag 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emil Weydert
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institute for Computer ScienceSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations