A system for computing constrained default logic extensions

  • G. Antoniou
  • A. P. Courtney
  • J. Ernst
  • M. A. Williams
Default Logics
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1126)


The aim of this paper is to describe the algorithmic foundations of the part of the program Exten responsible for the computation of extensions in Constrained Default Logic. Exten is a system that computes extensions for various default logics.

The efficiency of the system is increased by pruning techniques for the search tree. We motivate and present these techniques, and demonstrate that they can cut down the size of the search tree significantly. Quite importantly, they complement well the recently developed stratification method. This technique has to be modified to work properly with Constrained Default Logic, and we show how this can be done.

Exten supports experimentation with default logic, allowing the user to set various parameters. Also it has been designed to be open to future enhancements, which are supported by its object-oriented design. Exten is part of our long-term effort to develop an integrated toolkit for intelligent information management based on nonmonotonic reasoning and belief revision methods.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    G. Antoniou. Nonmonotonic Reasoning with Incomplete and Changing Information. MIT Press 1996 (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Ben-Eliyahu and I. Niemela (eds.). Applications and Implementations of Nonmonotonic Reasoning Systems. Proceedings of the IJCAI-95 Workshop.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Brewka. Cumulative default logic: in defense of nonmonotonic inference rules. Artificial Intelligence 50, 2 (1991): 183–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Cholewinski. Stratified Default Logic. In Proc. Computer Science Logic 1994, Springer LNCS 933, 456–470Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Cholewinski, W. Marek, A. Mikitiuk and M. Truszczynski. Experimenting with default logic. In Proc. ICLP-95, MIT Press 1995Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. P. Courtney. Towards a Default Logic Workbench: Computing Extensions. Honours Thesis, Basser Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney 1995Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J.P. Delgrande, T. Schaub and W.K. Jackson. Alternative Approaches to default logic. Artificial Intelligence 70 (1994): 167–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Hopkins. Orderings and Extensions. In Proc. ESQUARU'93, Springer 1993, LNAI 747Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    E. Koutsofinos and S.C. North. Dot. Bell Laboratories, http://www.research.att.com/orgs/ssr/book/reuse Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    T. Linke and T. Schaub. Lemma Handling in Default Logic Theorem Proving. In Proc. Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, Springer 1995, LNAI 946, 285–292Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    W. Lukaszewicz. Considerations of default logic: an alternative approach. Computational Intelligence 4, 1(1988): 1–16Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    A. Mikitiuk and M. Truszczynski. Constrained and rational default logics. In Proc. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1995Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. Poole. A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36 (1988): 27–47MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13(1980): 81–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    V. Risch and C. Schwind. Tableau-Based Characterization and Theorem Proving for Default Logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning 13 (1994): 223–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    T. Schaub. On Constrained Default Theories. In Proc. ECAI-92, Wiley 1992, 304–308Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    T. Schaub. A new methodology for query-answering in default logics via structure-oriented theorem proving. Journal of Automated Reasoning 15, 1 (1995): 95–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    K. Schlechta. Directly Sceptical Inheritance cannot Capture the Intersection of Extensions. In Proc. GMD Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, GMD 1989Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    K. Wallace. Proof Truncation Techniques in Model Elimination TableauBased Theorem Proving. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Newcastle 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Antoniou
    • 1
  • A. P. Courtney
    • 2
  • J. Ernst
    • 3
  • M. A. Williams
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Computing and Information TechnologyGriffith UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of ManagementUniversity of NewcastleAustralia
  4. 4.Department of ManagementUnversity of NewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations