A number of writers have suggested that specificity can be called upon to adjudicate competing default inferences. In the foundations of statistics, specificity is one of several ways to adjudicate the claims of competing reference classes. This suggests that in default inferences also other principles than specificity may be needed. This paper gives examples substantiating this suggestion, and provides formulations of the few other principles needed.
KeywordsSpecificity Probability Dominance Inheritance Reference Class Ordering Defaults
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bacchus, Fahiem:(1988) “A Heterogeneous Inheritance System Based on Probabilities,” mimeo.Google Scholar
- Etherington, David W.: (1987) “More on Inheritance Hierarchies with Exceptions: Default Theories and Inferential Distance,” AAAI-87, Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, 352–357.Google Scholar
- Kyburg, Henry E., Jr.: (1988) “Probabilistic Inference and Non-Monotonic Inference,” Shachter, Ross, and Levitt, Todd (eds): The Fourth Workshop on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp 229–236.Google Scholar
- Neufeld, Eric, and Poole, David: (1988) “Probabilistic Semantics and Defaults,” Shachter, Ross, and Levitt, Todd (eds): The Fourth Workshop on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1988, pp 275–282.Google Scholar
- Nute, Donald (1989) “Defeasible Logic and Inheritance Hierarchies with Exceptions.”Google Scholar
- Poole, David L.: (1985) “On the Comparison of Theories: Preferring the Most Specific Explanation,” IJCAI 85, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 144–147.Google Scholar
- Reichenbach, Hans (1949) The Theory of Probability, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angles.Google Scholar
- Touretzky, D. S., Horty, J. F., and Thomason, R. H.: (1987) “A Clash of Intuitions: the Current State of Non-Monotonic Multiple Inheritance Systems,” IJCAI-1987, 476–482.Google Scholar
- Touretzky, D. S.: (1984) “Implicit Ordering of Defaults in Inheritance Systems,” AAAI-84, 322–325.Google Scholar