Comparison of Inference Relations Defined over Different Sets of Ranking Functions

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10369)

Abstract

Skeptical inference in the context of a conditional knowledge base \(\mathcal R\) can be defined with respect to a set of models of \(\mathcal R\). For the semantics of ranking functions that assign a degree of surprise to each possible world, we develop a method for comparing the inference relations induced by different sets of ranking functions. Using this method, we address the problem of ensuring the correctness of approximating c-inference for \(\mathcal R\) by constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) over finite domains. While in general, determining a sufficient upper bound for these CSPs is an open problem, for a sequence of simple knowledge bases investigated only experimentally before, we prove that using the number of conditionals in \(\mathcal R\) as an upper bound correctly captures skeptical c-inference.

References

  1. 1.
    Beierle, C., Eichhorn, C., Kern-Isberner, G.: Skeptical inference based on C-representations and its characterization as a constraint satisfaction problem. In: Gyssens, M., Simari, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9616, pp. 65–82. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30024-5_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beierle, C., Kutsch, S.: Regular and sufficient bounds of finite domain constraints for skeptical c-inference. In: Benferhat, S., Tabia, K., Ali, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Industrial, Engineering, Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems (IEA/AIE-2017). LNAI, vol. 10350. Springer, Heidelberg (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beierle, C., Eichhorn, C., Kern-Isberner, G., Kutsch, S.: Properties of skeptical c-inference for conditional knowledge bases and its realization as a constraint satisfaction problem, (2017, submitted)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibilistic and standard probabilistic semantics of conditional knowledge bases. J. Logic Comput. 9(6), 873–895 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Finetti, B.: La prévision, ses lois logiques et ses sources subjectives. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré 7(1), 1–68 (1973). ed. Kyburg, H., Smokler, H.E.: English Translation in Studies in Subjective Probability, pp. 93–158. Wiley, New York (1974)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldszmidt, M., Pearl, J.: Qualitative probabilities for default reasoning, belief revision, and causal modeling. Artif. Intell. 84(1–2), 57–112 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kern-Isberner, G.: Conditionals in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Belief Revision. LNAI, vol. 2087. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kern-Isberner, G.: A thorough axiomatization of a principle of conditional preservation in belief revision. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 40(1–2), 127–164 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pearl, J.: System Z: a natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge (TARK 1990), pp. 121–135. Morgan Kaufmann Publisher Inc., San Francisco (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spohn, W.: Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states. In: Harper, W., Skyrms, B. (eds.) Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, II, pp. 105–134. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HagenHagenGermany

Personalised recommendations