Alternative approaches to default logic

Reiter's default logic has proven to be an enduring and versatile approach to non-monotonic reasoning. Subsequent work in default logic has concentrated in two major areas. First, modifications have been developed to extend and augment the approach. Second, there has been ongoing interest in semantic foundations for default logic. In this paper, a number of variants of default logic are developed to address differing intuitions arising from the original and subsequent formulations. First, we modify the manner in which consistency is used in the definition of a default extension. The idea is that a global rather than local notion of consistency is employed in the formation of a default extension. Second, we argue that in some situations the requirement of proving the antecedent of a default is too strong. A second variant of default logic is developed where this requirement is dropped; subsequently these approaches are combined, leading to a final variant. These variants then lead to default systems which conform to alternative intuitions regarding default reasoning. For all of these approaches, a fixed-point and a pseudo-iterative definition are given; as well a semantic characterisation of these approaches is provided. In the combined approach we argue also that one can now reason about a set of defaults and can determine, for example, if a particular default in a set is redundant. We show the relation of this work to that of ukaszewicz and Brewka, and to the Theorist system.