Specificity by default

  • P. Geerts
  • D. Vermeir
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 946)


The concept of prioritization, either implicitly or explicitly, has been generally recognized as a tool to eliminate spurious extensions. Implicit priority information can be used when specificity is the preference criterion by means of which extensions are selected. Sometimes, it is necessary to take other preference criteria into account, and explicit means of expressing priorities are required. Here we present an argument based approach to nonmonotonic reasoning, in which implicit and explicit priorities are combined. The idea is that arguments are ranked according to a preference relation based on implicit specificity information. Additional explicit priorities can be supplied by the user, so that specificity can be considered as the preference criterion by default.


Preference Relation Nonmonotonic Reasoning Preference Criterion Defeasible Reasoning Additional Priority 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G. Brewka, “Preferred Subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning,” in Proceedings IJCAI-89, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Brewka, “Adding priorities and specificity to default logic.,” Technical report, GMD, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Brewka, “Reasoning about priorities in default logic,” in Proceedings AAAI '94, pp. 940–945, Seattle, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.P. Delgrande and T.H. Schaub, “A general approach to specificity in default reasoning,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'94, pp. 146–157, Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Geerts and D. Vermeir, “Prioritization in nonmonotonic reasoning and ordered logic: a comparative study,” Technical Report 94-15, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Geerts, D. Nute, and D. Vermeir, “Ordered logic: defeasible reasoning for multiple agents,” in Decision Support Systems, vol. 11, pp. 157–190, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Geffner, in Default Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Theories, The MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Goldszmidt and J. Pearl, “System Z+: a formalism for reasoning with variable-strength defaults,” in Proceedings AAAI-91; PP. 399–404, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B.N. Grosof, “Generalizing Prioritization,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'91, pp. 289–300, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Loui, “Defeat among arguments: A system of defeasible inference,” Computational Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 100–106, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Nute, “Basic defeasible logic,” in Intensional Logics for Logic Programming, ed. L. Farinas del Cerro, M. Pentonnen, pp. 125–154, Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Pearl, “System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to non-monotonic reasoning,” in Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK-III), pp. 121–135, Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.L. Pollock, “Defeasible reasoning,” Cognitive Science, vol. 11, pp. 481–518, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Poole, “On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation,” in Proceedings IJCAI-85, pp. 144–147, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Simari and R. Loui, “A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 53, pp. 125–157, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Vermeir, P. Geerts, and D. Nute, “A logic for Defeasible Perspectives,” in Proceedings of the Tubingen workshop on semantic nets, inheritance and nonmonotonic reasoning, Tubingen, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Geerts
    • 1
  • D. Vermeir
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of Antwerp, UIABelgium
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceFree University of Brussels, VUBBelgium

Personalised recommendations