Uniform semantic treatment of default and autoepistemic logics

We revisit the issue of epistemological and semantic foundations for autoepistemic and default logics, two leading formalisms in nonmonotonic reasoning. We develop a general semantic approach to autoepistemic and default logics that is based on the notion of a belief pair and that exploits the lattice structure of the collection of all belief pairs. For each logic, we introduce a monotone operator on the lattice of belief pairs. We then show that a whole family of semantics can be defined in a systematic and principled way in terms of fixpoints of this operator (or as fixpoints of certain closely related operators). Our approach elucidates fundamental constructive principles in which agents form their belief sets, and leads to approximation semantics for autoepistemic and default logics. It also allows us to establish a precise one-to-one correspondence between the family of semantics for default logic and the family of semantics for autoepistemic logic. The correspondence exploits the modal interpretation of a default proposed by Konolige. Our results establish conclusively that default logic can be viewed as a fragment of autoepistemic logic, a result that has been long anticipated. At the same time, they explain the source of the difficulty to formally relate the semantics of default extensions by Reiter and autoepistemic expansions by Moore. These two semantics occupy different locations in the corresponding families of semantics for default and autoepistemic logics.     

Operational Concepts of Nonmonotonic Logics Part 2: Autoepistemic Logic

The subject of nonmonotonic reasoning is reasoning with incompleteinformation. One of the main approaches is autoepistemic logic inwhich reasoning is based on introspection. This paper aims at providing a smooth introduction to this logic,stressing its motivation and basic concepts. The meaning (semantics)of autoepistemic logic is given in terms of so-called expansionswhich are usually defined as solutions of a fixed-point equation. Thepresent paper shows a more understandable, operational method fordetermining expansions. By improving applicability of the basicconcepts to concrete examples, we hope to make a contribution to awider usage of autoepistemic logic in practical applications.     

Autoepistemic logic of first order and its expressive power

We study the expressive power of first-order autoepistemic logic. We argue that full introspection of rational agents should be carried out by minimizing positive introspection and maximizing negative introspection. Based on full introspection, we propose the maximal well-founded semantics that characterizes autoepistemic reasoning processes of rational agents, and show that breadth of the semantics covers all theories in autoepistemic logic of first order, Moore's AE logic, and Reiter's default logic. Our study demonstrates that the autoepistemic logic of first order is a very powerful framework for nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, deductive databases, and knowledge representation.This research is partially supported by NSERC grant OGP42193.     

Modal logic for default reasoning

In the paper we introduce a variant of autoepistemic logic that is especially suitable for expressing default reasonings. It is based on the notion of iterative expansion. We show a new way of translating default theories into the language of modal logic under which default extensions correspond exactly to iterative expansions. Iterative expansions have some attractive properties. They are more restrictive than autoepistemic expansions, and, for some classes of theories, than moderately grounded expansions. At the same time iterative expansions avoid several undesirable properties of strongly grounded expansions, for example, they are grounded in the whole set of the agent's initial assumptions and do not depend on their syntactic representation.Iterative expansions are defined syntactically. We define a semantics which leads to yet another notion of expansion — weak iterative expansion — and we show that there is an important class of theories, that we call -programs, for which iterative and weak iterative expansions coincide. Thus, for -programs, iterative expansions can be equivalently defined by semantic means.This work was partially supported by Army Research Office under grant DAAL03-89-K-0124, and by National Science Foundation and the Commonwealth of Kentucky EPSCoR program under grant RII 8610671.     

Default reasoning and belief revision: A syntax-independent approach

As an important variant of Reiter‘s default logic.Poole(1988) developed a nonmonotonic reasoning framework in the classical first-order language,Brewka and Nebel extended Poole‘s approach in order to enable a representation of priorities between defaults.In this paper a general framework for default reasoning is presented,which can be viewed as a generalization of the three approaches above.It is proved that the syntax-independent default reasoning in this framework is identical to the general belief revision operation introduced by Zhang et al.(1997).This esult provides a solution to the problem whether there is a correspondence between belief revision and default logic for the infinite case .As a by-product,an answer to the the question,raised by Mankinson and Gaerdenfors(1991),is also given about whether there is a counterpart contraciton in nonmonotonic logic.     

A Critical Reexamination of Default Logic, Autoepistemic Logic, and Only Knowing

Fifteen years of work on nonmonotonic logic has certainly increased our understanding of the area. However, given a problem in which nonmonotonic reasoning is called for, it is far from clear how one should go about modeling the problem using the various approaches. We explore this issue in the context on two of the best–known approaches, Reiter's default logic and Moore's autoepistemic logic, as well as two related notions of "only knowing," due to Halpern and Moses and to Levesque. In particular, we return to the original technical definitions given in these papers and examine the extent to which they capture the intuitions they were designed to capture.     

Nonmonotonic reasoning as prioritized argumentation

This paper proposes a formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning based on prioritized argumentation. We argue that nonmonotonic reasoning in general can be viewed as selecting monotonic inferences by a simple notion of priority among inference rules. More importantly, these types of constrained inferences can be specified in a knowledge representation language where a theory consists of a collection of rules of first order formulas and a priority among these rules. We recast default reasoning as a form of prioritized argumentation and illustrate how the parameterized formulation of priority may be used to allow various extensions and modifications to default reasoning. We also show that it is possible, but more difficult, to express prioritized argumentation by default logic: Even some particular forms of prioritized argumentation cannot be represented modularly by defaults under the same language     

Strong and uniform equivalence of nonmonotonic theories – an algebraic approach

We show that the concepts of strong and uniform equivalence of logic programs can be generalized to an abstract algebraic setting of operators on complete lattices. Our results imply characterizations of strong and uniform equivalence for several nonmonotonic logics including logic programming with aggregates, default logic and a version of autoepistemic logic. This work was partially supported by the NSF grant IIS-0325063.     

Modal nonmonotonic logics demodalized

The study of the relation between default logic and modal nonmonotonic logics has been mostly concerned with the task of translating default logic to autoepistemic or some other modal nonmonotonic logic. Here, we discuss the reverse problem, that is, the possibility of translating modal nonmonotonic logics into default-type systems formulated in the language without modal operators. To this end, we first consider a reformulation of both formalisms in terms of what we call default consequence relations. These consequence relations turn out to be especially suitable for studying default and modal nonmonotonic reasoning. We show, in particular, that different kinds of such reasoning naturally correspond to different structural rules imposed on default consequence relations. Our main results also demonstrate that all modal nonmonotonic objects considered have exact nonmodal counterparts. As an immediate consequence of these results, we obtain a method of reducing common types of modal nonmonotonic reasoning to nonmodal default reasoning.     

An Interpretation of Default Logic in Minimal Temporal Epistemic Logic

When reasoning about complex domains, where information available is usually only partial, nonmonotonic reasoning can be an important tool. One of the formalisms introduced in this area is Reiter's Default Logic (1980). A characteristic of this formalism is that the applicability of default (inference) rules can only be verified in the future of the reasoning process. We describe an interpretation of default logic in temporal epistemic logic which makes this characteristic explicit. It is shown that this interpretation yields a semantics for default logic based on temporal epistemic models. A comparison between the various semantics for default logic will show the differences and similarities of these approaches and ours.     

Using default and causal reasoning in diagnosis

We present a theory of default reasoning that is specifically targeted to causal domains. These domains encompass a wide variety of current applications of default reasoning, but here we concentrate on model-based diagnosis. The theory is unique in that it integrates a formal notion of causality with nonmonotonic reasoning techniques based on default logic and abduction. The main structure of the theory is a default causal net (DCN) representing the causal connections among propositions in the domain. The causal net provides a framework for the two nonmonotonic reasoning techniques of assuming defaults and generating explanations for observations, allowing them to be combined in a principled way.     

基于四值语义的缺省逻辑

基于公式变换,给出一组缺省理论的变换方法,将命题语言L中的缺省理论变换到对应的命题语言L^-＋中,保证了所得到的缺省理论的所有扩张均不平凡,并通过一种弱变换可同时保证缺省扩张的存在性．为缺省理论定义了各种四值模型,使得缺省逻辑具有非单调超协调推理能力,并证明了L^-＋中的缺省扩张与L中缺省理论的四值模型之间具有一一对应关系．四值模型描述了公式变换的语义,基于四值语义的缺省推理通过缺省理论的变换技术能在标准的缺省逻辑中实现．     

On the dynamics of default reasoning

Default logic is a prominent rigorous method for reasoning with incomplete information based on assumptions. It is a static reasoning approach, in the sense that it doesn't reason about changes and their consequences. On the other hand, its nonmonotonic behavior appears when changes to a default theory are made. This paper studies the dynamic behavior of default logic in the face of changes. We consider the operations of contraction and revision, present several solutions to these problems, and study their properties. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Default reasoning by deductive planning

This paper deals with the automation of reasoning from incomplete information by means of default logics. We provide proof procedures for default logics' major reasoning modes, namely, credulous and skeptical reasoning. We start by reformulating the task of credulous reasoning in default logics as deductive planning problems. This interpretation supplies us with several interesting and valuable insights into the proof theory of default logics. Foremost, it allows us to take advantage of the large number of available methods, algorithms, and implementations for solving deductive planning problems. As an example, we demonstrate how credulous reasoning in certain variants of default logic is implementable by means of a planning method based on equational logic programming. In addition, our interpretation allows us to transfer theoretical results, such as complexity results, from the field of planning to that of default logics. In this way, we have isolated two yet unknown classes of default theories for which deciding credulous entailment is polynomial.Our approach to skeptical reasoning relies on an arbitrary method for credulous reasoning. It does not strictly require rather the inspection of all extensions, nor does it strictly require the computation of entire extensions to decide whether a formula is skeptically entailed. Notably, our approach abstracts from an underlying credulous reasoner. In this way, it can be used to extend existing formalisms for credulous reasoning to skeptical reasoning.This author was a visiting professor at the University of Darmstadt while parts of this work were being carried out. This author also acknowledges support from the Commission of the European Communities under grant no. ERB4001GT922433.     

General default logic

In this paper, we propose a new nonmonotonic logic called general default logic. On the one hand, it generalizes Reiter’s default logic by adding to it rule-like operators used in logic programming. On the other hand, it extends logic programming by allowing arbitrary propositional formulas. We show that with this new logic, one can formalize naturally rule constraints, generalized closed world assumptions, and conditional defaults. We show that under a notion of strong equivalence, sentences of this new logic can be converted to a normal form. We also investigate the computational complexity of various reasoning tasks in the logic, and relate it to some other nonmonotonic formalisms such as Lin and Shoham’s logic of GK and Moore’s autoepistemic logic.