David Billington
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Defeasible reasoning is a computationally simple nonmonotonic reasoning approach that has attracted significant theoretical and practical attention. It comprises a family of logics that capture different intuitions, among them ambiguity propagation versus ambiguity blocking, and the adoption or rejection of team defeat. This article provides a compact presentation of the defeasible logic variants, and derives an inclusion theorem which shows that different notions of provability in defeasible logic form a chain of levels of proof.
- Antoniou, G. and Bikakis, A. 2007. DR-Prolog: A system for defeasible reasoning with rules and ontologies on the semantic web. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 19 2, 233--245. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., and Maher, M. J. 2000a. A flexible framework for defeasible logics. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 12th Conference on on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI), Menlo Park, CA/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 405--410. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., and Maher, M. J. 2001. Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2, 2, 255--287. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., and Maher, M. J. 2006. Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming. Theor. Pract. Log. Program. 6, 6, 703--735. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M. J., and Rock, A. 2000b. A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), W. Horn, Ed. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 459--463.Google Scholar
- Antoniou, G., Maher, M. J., and Billington, D. 2000c. Defeasible logic versus logic programming without negation as failure. J. Log. Program. 42, 1, 47--57.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Balduccini, M. and Gelfod, M. 2003. Logic programs with consistency-restoring rules. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Logical Formalization of Commonsense Reasoning. P. Doherty, J. McCarthy, and M.-A. Williams, Eds. AAAI Spring Symposium Series. AAAI, Press, Menlo Park, CA, 9--18.Google Scholar
- Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., and Vlahavas, I. P. 2006. A defeasible logic reasoner for the semantic Web. Int. J. Semant. Web Inform. Syst. 2, 1, 1--41.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Billington, D. 1993. Defeasible logic is stable. J. Log. Comput. 3, 4, 379--400.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bochman, A. 2003. Collective argumentation and disjunctive logic programming. J. Log. Comput. 13, 3, 405--428.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., and Rullo, P. 1997. Strong and weak constraints in disjunctive datalog. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR), J. Dix, U. Furbach, and A. Nerode, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1265. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2--17. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dimopoulos, Y. and Kakas, A. C. 1995. Logic programming without negation as failure. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Logic Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 369--383.Google Scholar
- Dumas, M., Governatori, G., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., and Oaks, P. 2002. A formal approach to negotiating agents development. Electron. Com. Res. Appl. 1, 2, 193--207.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Art. Intell. 77, 2, 321--358. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dung, P. M., Mancarella, P., and Toni, F. 2007. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Art. Intell. 171, 10-15, 642--674. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eriksson Lundström, J., Governatori, G., Thakur, S., and Padmanabhan, V. 2007. An asymmetric protocol for argumentation games in defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Rim International Conference on Multi-Agents (PRIMA), A. K. Ghose, G. Governatori, and R. Sadananda, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5044. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 219--231. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Governatori, G. 2005. Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int. J. Coop. Inform. Syst. 14, 2-3, 181--216.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Governatori, G. and Maher, M. J. 2000. An argumentation-theoretic characterization of defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI). W. Horn, Ed. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 469--473.Google Scholar
- Governatori, G., Maher, M. J., Billington, D., and Antoniou, G. 2004. Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. J. Log. Comput. 14, 5, 675--702. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Governatori, G. and Rotolo, A. 2008. BIO logical agents: Norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 17, 1, 36--69. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., and Padmanabhan, V. 2006. The cost of social agents. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). H. Nakashima, M. P. Wellman, G. Weiss, and P. Stone, Eds. 513--520. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., and Sartor, G. 2005. Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL). ACM Press, New York, NY, 25--34. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Govindarajan, K., Jayaraman, B., and Mantha, S. 1995. Preference logic programming. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 731--745.Google Scholar
- Grosof, B. N. 1997. Prioritized conflict handling for logic programs. In Proceedings of the 1997 International Logic Programming Symposium. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 197--211. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grosof, B. N., Labrou, Y., and Chan, H. Y. 1999. A declarative approach to business rules in contracts: Courteous logic programs in xml. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 68--77. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Horty, J. F. 2001. Argument construction and reinstatement in logics for defeasible reasoning. Art. Intell. Law 9, 1, 1--28.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Horty, J. F. 2002. Skepticism and floating conclusions. Art. Intell. 135, 1-2, 55--72. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Horty, J. F. 2007. Defaults with priorities. J. Phil. Log. 36, 367--413.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kraus, S., Lehmann, D. J., and Magidor, M. 1990. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Art. Intell. 44, 1-2, 167--207. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kunen, K. 1987. Negation in logic programming. J. Log. Program. 4, 4, 289--308. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maher, M. J. 2001. Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theor. Pract. Log. Program. 1, 6, 691--711. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maher, M. J. 2002. A model-theoretic semantics for defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Paraconsistent Computational Logic. 67--80.Google Scholar
- Maher, M. J. and Governatori, G. 1999. A semantic decomposition of defeasible logics. In Proceedings of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 11th Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI). 299--305. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Makinson, D. 1994. General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. II, D. Gabbay, Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 35--110. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McCarthy, J. 1980. Circumscription—a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Art. Intell. 13, 1-2, 27--39.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moore, R. C. 1985. Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Art. Intell. 25, 1, 75--94. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, S. H. and Parsons, S. 2006. A generalization of dung's abstract framework for argumentation: Arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS), N. Maudet, S. Parsons, and I. Rahwan, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4766. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 54--73.Google Scholar
- Nute, D. 1997. Defeasible logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. III. D. Gabbay, Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 353--395. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Prakken, H. 1997. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Prakken, H. 2005. A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL). ACM Press, New York, NY, 85--94. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 2007. Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL). 97--106. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reeves, D. M., Wellman, M. P., and Grosof, B. N. 2002. Automated negotiation from declarative contract descriptions. Comput. Intell. 18, 4, 482--500.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reiter, R. 1980. A logic for default reasoning. Art. Intell. 13, 1-2, 81--132.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stein, L. A. 1992. Resolving ambiguity in nonmonotonic inheritance hierarchies. Art. Intell. 55, 2, 259--310. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Touretzky, D. S., Horty, J. F., and Thomason, R. H. 1987. A clash of intuitions: The current state of nonmonotonic multiple inheritance systems. In Proceedings of IJCAI. 476--482. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wang, X., You, J.-H., and Yuan, L.-Y. 1996. Nonmonotonic reasoning by monotonic inference with priority constraints. In Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming (NMELP), J. Dix, L. M. Pereira, and T. C. Przymusinski, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1216. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 91--109. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- An inclusion theorem for defeasible logics
Recommendations
Relative expressiveness of defeasible logics
We address the relative expressiveness of defeasible logics in the framework DL. Relative expressiveness is formulated as the ability to simulate the reasoning of one logic within another logic. We show that such simulations must be modular, in the ...
Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming
Defeasible reasoning is a simple but efficient approach to nonmonotonic reasoning that has recently attracted considerable interest and that has found various applications. Defeasible logic and its variants are an important family of defeasible ...
A defeasible logic for clauses
AI'11: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Advances in Artificial IntelligenceA new non-monotonic logic called clausal defeasible logic (CDL) is defined and explained. CDL is the latest in the family of defeasible logics, which, it is argued, is important for knowledge representation and reasoning. CDL increases the expressive ...
Comments