On Cautiousness and Expressiveness in Interval-Valued Logic

  • Sébastien DesterckeEmail author
  • Sylvain Lagrue
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11940)


In this paper, we study how cautious conclusions should be taken when considering interval-valued propositional logic, that is logic where to each formula is associated a real-valued interval providing imprecise information about the penalty incurred for falsifying this formula. We work under the general assumption that the weights of falsified formulas are aggregated through a non-decreasing commutative function, and that an interpretation is all the more plausible as it is less penalized. We then formulate some dominance notions, as well as properties that such notions should follow if we want to draw conclusions that are at the same time informative and cautious. We then discuss the dominance notions in light of such properties.


Logic Imprecise weights Skeptic inference Robust inferences Penalty logic 


  1. 1.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibilistic and standard probabilistic semantics of conditional knowledge bases. J. Logic Comput. 9(6), 873–895 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benferhat, S., Hué, J., Lagrue, S., Rossit, J.: Interval-based possibilistic logic. In: Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dubois, D., Godo, L., Prade, H.: Weighted logics for artificial intelligence - an introductory discussion. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 9(55), 1819–1829 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibilistic logic: a retrospective and prospective view. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 144(1), 3–23 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dupin De Saint-Cyr, F., Lang, J., Schiex, T.: Penalty logic and its link with Dempster-Shafer theory. In: Uncertainty Proceedings 1994, pp. 204–211. Elsevier (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelain, M., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., Venable, K.B., Wilson, N.: Interval-valued soft constraint problems. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 58(3–4), 261–298 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning with various kinds of preferences: logic, non-monotonicity, and algorithms. Ann. Oper. Res. 163(1), 89–114 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Technologie de Compiègne, CNRS, UMR 7253 - Heudiasyc, Centre de Recherche de RoyallieuCompiègneFrance

Personalised recommendations