Ordering-based representations of rational inference

  • Konstantinos Georgatos
Nonmonotonic Reasoning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1126)


Rational inference relations were introduced by Lehmann and Magidor as the ideal systems for drawing conclusions from a conditional base. However, there has been no simple characterization of these relations, other than its original representation by preferential models. In this paper, we shall characterize them with a class of total preorders of formulas by improving and extending Gärdenfors and Makinson's results for expectation inference relations. A second representation is application-oriented and is obtained by considering a class of consequence operators that grade sets of defaults according to our reliance on them. The finitary fragment of this class of consequence operators has been employed by recent default logic formalisms based on maxiconsistency.


foundations of knowledge representation nonmonotonic reasoning nonmonotonic consequence relations orderings of formulas 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510–530, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Dubois. Belief structures, possibility theory and decomposable confidence measures on finite sets. Computers and Artificial Intelligence, 5(5):403–416, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Dubois and H. Prade. Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty. Plenum, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Dubois and H. Prade. Epistemic entrenchment and possibilistic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 50:223–239, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Farinãs del Cerro, A. Herzig, and J. Lang. From ordering-based nonmonotonic reasoning to conditional logics. Artificial Intelligence, 66:375–393, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Gabbay. Theoretical foundations for nonmonotonic reasoning in expert systems. In K. Apt, editor, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pages 661–672, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson. Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations. Artificial Intelligence, 65:197–245, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Georgatos. Preferential orderings. Typed Manuscript. July 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Georgatos. Priority relations: A uniform approach to nonmonotonic inference. Submitted.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Georgatos. Default logic and nonmonotonic consequence relations (abstract). In 10th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, page 97, Florence, Italy, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Georgatos. On the relations between rational and expectation inference. Technical report, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Madras, India, February 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, and M. Magidor. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44:167–207, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Lehmann and M. Magidor. What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence, 55:1–60, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Makinson. General theory of cumulative inference. In M. Reinfranck, editor, Non-Monotoning Reasoning, number 346 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1–18. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Makinson. General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In D. Gabbay, editor, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume II. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Makinson and P. Gärdenfors. Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic. In A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau, editors, The Logic of Theory Change, number 465 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 185–205, Berlin, 1991. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Nebel. Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax based approaches. In J. A. Allen, R. Fikes, J. R. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proceedings of The Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 91), pages 301–311. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Nebel. Base revision operations and schemes: Semantics, representation, and complexity. In A. Cohn, editor, Proceedings of The 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 94), pages 341–345. John Wiley, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Pearl. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, California, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Rott. A nonmonotonic conditional logic for belief revision. In A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau, editors, The Logic of Theory Change, number 465 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 135–183, Berlin, 1991. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Rott. Two methods of constructing contractions and revisions of knowledge systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20:149–173, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. L. S. Shackle. Decision, Order and Time in Human Affairs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1961.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Shafer. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Y. Shoham. A semantical approach to non-monotonic logics. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 1413–1419, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. Spohn. Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In W. L. Harper and B. Skyrms, editors, Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, volume 2, pages 105–134. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1987.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Stalnaker. What is a nonmonotonic consequence relation? Fundamenta Informaticae, 21:7–21, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    L. A. Zadeh. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1:3–28, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    L. A. Zadeh. PRUF: A meaning representation language for natural languages. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 10(4):395–460, 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantinos Georgatos
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations