• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

A Flexible Framework for Defeasible Logics G. Antoniou and D. Billington and G. Governatori and M.J. Maher School of Computing and Information Technology, Griffith University Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia {ga,db,guido,mjm}@cit.gu.edu.au Abstract likely then that these logics are practically useful for knowl- edge representation. Logics for knowledge representation suffer from over- specialization: while each logic may provide an ideal repre- One way to address this problem is to develop logics that sentation formalism for some problems, it is less than optimal are “tunable” to the situation. That is, to develop a frame- for others. A solution to this problem is to choose from sev- work of logics in which an appropriate logic can be de- eral logics and, when necessary, combine the representations. signed. However, such a framework is not sufficient. Also In general, such an approach results in a very difficult prob- needed is a methodology for designing logics, and the capa- lem of combination. However, if we can choose the logics bility of employing more than one such logic in a represen- from a uniform framework then the problem of combining tation. them is greatly simplified. In this paper, we develop such In this paper we develop such a framework for defeasi- a framework for defeasible logics. It supports all defeasible ble logics. This is a first step towards addressing the above logics that satisfy a strong negation principle. We use logic meta-programs as the basis for the framework. problem for knowledge representation logics more gener- ally. We make some contributions to the methodology by demonstrating how certain properties can be ensured for a Introduction logic. However, there is still much work to be done. Logics for knowledge representation and, in particular, non- Defeasible logics were introduced and developed by Nute monotonic logics have developed greatly over the past 20 over several years (Nute 1994). These logics perform de- years. Many logics have been proposed, and a deeper under- feasible reasoning, where a conclusion supported by a rule standing of the advantages and disadvantages of particular might be overturnedby the effect of another rule. Roughly, a logics has been developed. There are also, finally, some in- proposition p can be defeasibly provedonly when a rule sup- dications that these logics can be usefully applied (Morgen- ports it, and it has been demonstrated that no rule supports stern 1998; Prakken 1997). ¬p. These logics also have a monotonic reasoning compo- Unfortunately, it appears that no single logic is appropri- nent, and a priority on rules. One advantage of these logics ate in all situations, or for all purposes. History clearly in- is that the cost of computing with them is low (Antoniou, dicates that while one logic may achieve desired results in Billington, Maher and Rock 2000), in contrast to most log- some situations, in other situations the outcome is not as suc- ics for knowledge representation. cessful. This is, no doubt, one reason for the proliferation of Nute has developed a framework for defeasible logic non-monotonic logics. that abstracts the many individual logics he has constructed arXiv:cs/0003013v1 [cs.AI] 7 Mar 2000 Furthermore, even with a fixed syntax and a common mo- (Nute 1994). Although there are some logics in Nute’s tivating intuition, reasonable people can disagree on the se- framework that cannot be represented in our framework, we mantics of the logic. This can be seen in the literature on will address logics that go well beyond the family of log- semantics of logic programs with negation, for example, but ics addressed by Nute. We consider logics that admit more the point was made more sharply in (Touretzky, Horty and kinds of conclusionsthan statements of definite or defeasible Thomason 1987) where a “clash of intuitions” was demon- proof, as well as logics with different notions of failure-to- strated in several different ways for a simple language de- prove than the one used in Nute’s framework. scribing multiple inheritance with exceptions. So it appears In the next section we introduce defeasible logics in gen- that no single logic, with a fixed semantics, will be appro- eral and one particular defeasible logic DL. We introduce priate. the Principle of Strong Negation as a design criterion for de- However, the diversity of logics threatens to become a feasible logics. In the following sections we demonstrate the Tower of Babel. If different problems require different log- framework, first by applying it to DL and then by designing ics then there are many practical disadvantages: skills in one independently motivated variants of DL. We also compare logic do not transfer to another, combining systems com- it with Nute’s framework. In the process, we clarify the rela- posed of different logics is problematic, etc. It seems un- tionship between defeasible logics and other non-monotonic logics. Defeasible Logics • +∆q, which is intended to mean that q is definitely prov- The family of defeasible logics was introduced by Nute. We able in D. begin by outlining the constructs in defeasible logics. We • −∆q, which is intended to mean that we have proved that then define the inference rules of a particular defeasible logic q is not definitely provable in D. DL that has received the most attention. Finally, we intro- duce the Principle of Strong Negation. • +∂q, which is intended to mean that q is defeasibly prov- able in D. Outline of Defeasible Logics • −∂q which is intended to mean that we have proved that A defeasible theory D is a triple (F,R,>) where F is a q is not defeasibly provable in D. set of literals (called facts), R a finite set of rules, and > Although the two pairs of tags mentioned above are the a superiority relation on R. In expressing the proof theory only ones currently used in defeasible logics, we will leave we consider only propositional rules. Rules containing free open the possibility of further (pairs of) tags. Indeed, we variables are interpreted as the set of their variable-free in- will later introduce in our framework the notion of support stances. for a conclusion, which would require new tags in order to There are three kinds of rules: Strict rules are denoted by express this notion in a proof theory in the style of the next A → p, and are interpreted in the classical sense: when- section. ever the premises are indisputable (e.g. facts) then so is the conclusion. An example of a strict rule is “Emus are birds”. Nute's Framework Written formally: Nute’s framework for defeasible reasoning (Nute 1994) is emu(X) → bird(X). based around defining a class of proof trees which represent valid inferences. We can reformulate this in terms of con- Inference from facts and strict rules only is called definite ventional inference rules, but we do not have space for a inference. Facts and strict rules are intended to define re- detailed presentation. lationships that are definitional in nature. Thus defeasible Briefly, Nute’s framework consists of four inference rules logics contain no mechanism for resolving inconsistencies which partly specify the behaviour of the definite (mono- in definite inference. tonic) reasoning component and its relationship with the de- Defeasible rules are denoted by A ⇒ p, and can be de- feasible (non-monotonic) reasoning component. Nute de- feated by contrary evidence. An example of such a rule is fines a defeasible logic to be a logic containing this mono- bird(X) ⇒ flies(X) tonic kernel of inference rules and satisfying a coherence property. He also discusses several design principles of de- which reads as follows: “Birds typically fly”. feasible logics, but these are not a part of his framework. Defeaters are denoted by A ❀ p and are used to prevent some conclusions. In other words, they are used to defeat A Defeasible Logic some defeasible rules by producing evidence to the contrary. An example is the rule As an example of a defeasible logic, we consider the logic of (Nute 1987), which we have investigated previously (An- heavy(X) ❀ ¬flies(X) toniou, Billington and Maher 1998; Maher, Antoniu and Billington 1998). In this presentation we use the formulation which reads as follows: “If an animal is heavy then it may given in (Billington 1993). We denote this logic by DL. not be able to fly”. The main point is that the information Given a set R of rules, we denote the set of all strict rules that an animal is heavy is not sufficient evidence to conclude in R by Rs, the set of strict and defeasible rules in R by that it doesn’t fly. It is only evidence that the animal may not Rsd, the set of defeasible rules in R by Rd, and the set of be able to fly. defeaters in R by Rdft. R[q] denotes the set of rules in R A superiority relation on R is an acyclic relation > on with consequent q. In the following ∼p denotes the comple- R (that is, the transitive closure of > is irreflexive). When ment of p, that is, ∼p is ¬p if p is an atom, and ∼p is q if p r1 > r2, then r1 is called superior to r2, and r2 inferior to is ¬q. r1. This expresses that r1 may override r2. For example, A rule r consists of its antecedent A(r) (written on the given the defeasible rules left; A(r) may be omitted if it is the empty set) which is a fi- r : bird(X) ⇒ flies(X) nite set of literals, an arrow, and its consequent C(r) which r′ : brokenWing(X) ⇒ ¬flies(X) is a literal.

Load more

  7

Copy Link