The paper is originally published in the Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ISBN: 978-0-9992411-0-3), published by International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. The original publication is available at https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2017/129.
Non-monotonic Reasoning; Belief Change; Logics for Knowledge Representation
Résumé :
[en] Belief change and non-monotonic reasoning are usually viewed as two sides of the same coin,
with results showing that one can formally be defined in terms of the other. In this paper we show that we can also integrate the two formalisms by studying belief change within a (preferential) non-monotonic framework. This integration relies heavily on the identification of the monotonic core of a non-monotonic framework. We consider belief change operators in a non-monotonic propositional
setting with a view towards preserving consistency. These results can also be applied to the preservation of coherence—an important notion within the field of logic-based ontologies. We show that the standard AGM approach to belief change can be adapted to a preferential non-monotonic framework, with the definition of expansion, contraction, and revision operators, and corresponding representation results. Surprisingly, preferential AGM belief change, as defined here, can be obtained in terms of classical AGM belief change.
Centre de recherche :
- Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT) > Other
Disciplines :
Sciences informatiques
Auteur, co-auteur :
CASINI, Giovanni ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
Meyer, Thomas; University of Cape Town > Computer Science
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Belief Change in a Preferential Non-Monotonic Framework
Date de publication/diffusion :
août 2017
Nom de la manifestation :
The 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)
Date de la manifestation :
from 19-08-2017 to 25-08-2017
Manifestation à portée :
International
Titre de l'ouvrage principal :
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Maison d'édition :
International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence
ISBN/EAN :
978-0-9992411-0-3
Pagination :
929-935
Peer reviewed :
Peer reviewed
Focus Area :
Computational Sciences
Projet européen :
H2020 - 690974 - MIREL - MIREL - MIning and REasoning with Legal texts
Projet FnR :
FNR9181001 - Subjective And Objective Uncertainty In Description Logics, 2014 (01/07/2015-30/06/2017) - Giovanni Casini
[Alchourrón et al., 1985] Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510-530, 1985.
[Booth and Paris, 1998] Richard Booth and Jeff B. Paris. A note on the rational closure of knowledge bases with both positive and negative knowledge. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7(2):165-190, 1998.
[Britz et al., 2008] Katarina Britz, Johannes Heidema, and Thomas Meyer. Semantic preferential subsumption. In J. Lang and G. Brewka, editors, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2008, pages 476-484. AAAI Press/MIT Press, 2008.
[Britz et al., 2011] Katarina Britz, Thomas Meyer, and Ivan Varzinczak. Semantic foundation for preferential Description Logics. In D. Wang and M. Reynolds, editors, Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, number 7106 in LNAI, pages 491-500. Springer, 2011.
[Casini and Meyer, 2016] Giovanni Casini and Thomas Meyer. Using defeasible information to obtain coherence. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2016, pages 537-540, 2016.
[Casini and Straccia, 2010] Giovanni Casini and Umberto Straccia. Rational closure for defeasible Description Logics. In T. Janhunen and I. Niemelä, editors, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), number 6341 in LNCS, pages 77-90. Springer-Verlag, 2010.
[Casini and Straccia, 2013] Giovanni Casini and Umberto Straccia. Defeasible inheritance-based Description Logics. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 48:415-473, 2013.
[Delgrande et al., 2013] James Delgrande, Torsten Schaub, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. A model-theoretic approach to belief change in answer set programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic, 14(2):1-46, 2013.
[Giordano et al., 2013] Laura Giordano, Valentina Gliozzi, Nicola Olivetti, and Gian Luca Pozzato. A non-monotonic Description Logic for reasoning about typicality. Artif. Intell., 195:165-202, 2013.
[Giordano et al., 2015] Laura Giordano, Valentina Gliozzi, Nicola Olivetti, and Gian Luca Pozzato. Semantic characterization of rational closure: From propositional logic to Description Logics. Artif. Intell. J., 226:1-33, 2015.
[Harper, 1976] William L. Harper. Rational conceptual change. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1976:462-494, 1976.
[Kern-Isberner, 1999] Gabriele Kern-Isberner. Postulates for conditional belief revision. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence - Volume 1, IJCAI'99, pages 186-191, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1999. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
[Kraus et al., 1990] Sarit Kraus, Daniel Lehmann, and Menachem Magidor. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artif. Intell., 44:167-207, 1990.
[Lehmann and Magidor, 1992] Daniel Lehmann and Menachem Magidor. What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artif. Intell., 55:1-60, 1992.
[Lehmann, 1995] Daniel Lehmann. Another perspective on default reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 15(1):61-82, 1995.
[Levi, 1977] Isaac Levi. Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese, 34:423-455, 1977.
[Meyer, 2001] Thomas Meyer. Basic infobase change. Studia Logica, 67(2):215-242, 2001.
[Nebel, 1989] Bernhard Nebel. A knowledge level analysis of belief revision. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89). Toronto, Canada, May 15-18 1989., pages 301-311, 1989.
[Qi and Hunter, 2007] Guilin Qi and Anthony Hunter. Measuring incoherence in Description Logic-based ontologies. In The Semantic Web, volume 4825 of LNCS, pages 381-394. Springer, 2007.
