Advertisement

Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 430–438 | Cite as

Default reasoning and belief revision: A syntax-independent approach

  • Zhang Dongmo Email author
  • Zhu Zhaohui 
  • Chen Shifu 
Article

Abstract

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 Zhanget al. (1997). This result 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 question, raised by Mankinson and Gärdenfors (1991), is also given about whether there is a counterpart contraction in nonmonotonic logic.

Keywords

nonmonotonic logic default reasoning belief revision 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Raymond Reiter. A logic for default reasoning.Artificial Intelligence, 1980, 13: 81–132.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Gerhard Brewka. Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. InProceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-89, Sridharan N S (ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, 1989, pp. 1034–1048.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bernhard Nebel. Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax-based approaches. InPrinciples of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Allen J Aet al. (eds.), Morgan Kaufmann, 1991, pp. 417–428.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    David Poole. A logical framework for default reasoning.Artificial Intelligence, 1988, 36: 27–47.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Gerhard Brewka. Belief revision in a framework for default reasoning. InThe Logic of Theory Change, Fuhrmann A, Morreau M (eds.),LNCS 465, Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 206–222.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    David Makinson, Peter Gärdenfors. Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic. InThe Logic of Theory Change, Fuhrmann A, Morreau M (eds.),LNCS 465, Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 185–205.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Zhang Dongmo. Belief revision by sets of sentences.Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 1996, 11(2): 108–125.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Zhang Dongmo, Chen Shifu, Zhu Wujia, Chen Zhaoqian. Representational theorems for multiple belief changes. InProceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conferene on Artificial Intelligenc, IJCAI-97, Morgan Kaufmann, 1997, pp. 89–94.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Bernhard Nebel. Syntax based approaches to belief revision. InBelief Revision, Gärdenfors P (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 52–88.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    C E Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, David Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1985, 50(2): 510–530.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Hirofumi Katsuno, Alberto O Mendelzon. A unified view of propositional knowledge base updates. InProceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-89, Sridharan N S (ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, 1989, pp. 1413–1419.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Craig Boutilier. Unifying default reasoning and belief revision in a modal framework.Artificial Intelligence, 1994, 68: 33–85.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Maria R Cravo, João P Martins. A unified approach to default reasoning and belief revision. InProgress in Artificial Intelligence, Filgueiras M, Damas L (eds.),LNAI 727. Springer-Verlag, 1993, pp. 226–241.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Mark Ryan. Defaults and revision in structured theories. InProceedings of the Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991, pp. 362–373.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Peter Gärdenfors, David Makinson. Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations.Artificial Intelligence, 1994, 65: 197–245.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Zhang Dongmo, Chen Shifu, Zhu Wujia, Li Hongbin. Nonmonotonic reasoning and multiple belief revision. InProceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-97, Morgan Kaufmann, 1997, pp.95–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Beijing China and Allerton Press Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingP.R. China
  2. 2.State Key Lab for Novel Software TechnologyNanjing UniversityNanjingP.R. China

Personalised recommendations