Advertisement

A Framework for Reasoning with Defaults

  • Hector Geffner
  • Judea Pearl
Part of the Studies in Cognitive Systems book series (COGS, volume 5)

Abstract

Belief commitment and belief revision are two distinctive characteristics of common sense reasoning which have so far resisted satisfactory formal accounts. Classical logic for instance, cannot accommodate belief revision: new information can only add new theorems. Probability theory, on the other hand, has difficulties in accommodating belief commitment: propositions are believed only to a certain degree which dynamically changes with the acquisition of new information.

Keywords

Belief Revision Default Theory Default Logic Default Reasoning Background Context 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Adams, E., Special Issue on Non-Monotonic Logics, AI Journal 13, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, E. “Probability and the logic of conditionals,” in Aspects of In-ductive Logic, J. Hintikka and P. Suppes, eds., Elsevier, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. Delgrande, J. “An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic,” Proceedings AAAI-87, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. Etherington, D. Reasoning with Incomplete Information, Pitman, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. Gabbay, D. M. “Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems,” Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, K. R. Apt, ed., Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. Glymour, C., and R. Thomason. “Default reasoning and the logic of theory perturbation,” Proceedings Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, New Paltz, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. Loui, R. P. “Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference,” Computational Intelligence, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Hanks, S., and D. McDermott. “Default reasoning, non-monotonic logics, and the frame problem,” Proceedings of the AAAI-86, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 328–333, 1986. Google Scholar
  9. Nute, D. “Conditional logic,” Handbook of Philosophical Logic 2,D. Gab-bay and F. Guenthner, eds., pp. 387–439.Google Scholar
  10. Nute, D. “LDR: a logic for defeasible reasoning,” ACMC Research Report 01–0013, University of Georgia, Athens, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. Pollock, J. “Defeasible reasoning and the statistical syllogism,” Unpublished manuscript, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. Touretzky, D. The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems, Pitman, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. Touretzky, D., Horty, J., and R. Thomason. “A clash of intuitions: the current state of non-monotonic multiple inheritance systems,” Proceedings of the IJCAI-87, Milano, Italy, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hector Geffner
  • Judea Pearl

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations