Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revising Nonmonotonic Theories: The Case of Defeasible Logic

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
KI-99: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (KI 1999)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1701))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The revision and transformation of knowledge is widely recognized as a key issue in knowledge representation and reasoning. Reasons for the importance of this topic are the fact that intelligent systems are gradually developed and refined, and that often the environment of an intelligent system is not static but changes over time. Traditionally belief revision has been concerned with revising first order theories.

Nonmonotonic reasoning provides rigorous techniques for reasoning with incomplete information. Until recently the dynamics of nonmonotonic reasoning approaches has attracted little attention. This paper studies the dynamics of defeasible logic, a simple and efficient form of nonmonotonic reasoning based on defeasible rules and priorities. We define revision and contraction operators and propose postulates. Our postulates try to follow the ideas of AGM belief revision as far as possible, but some AGM postulates clearly contradict the nonmonotonic nature of defeasible logic, as we explain. Finally we verify that the operators satisfy the postulates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C. E. Alchourron, P. Gardenfors and D. Makinson. On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (1985), 510–530.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. G. Antoniou. The role of nonmonotonic representations in requirements engineering. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering8, 3 (1998): 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. G. Antoniou, D. Billington and M. Maher. On the analysis of regulations using defeasible rules. In Proc. 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, IEEE Press 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. G. Brewka. Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning. In Proc. 11th IJCAI, 1989, 1043–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. E. Cooke and Luqi. Logic Programming and Software Maintenance. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 21 (1997): 221–229.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. M. A. Covington. Defeasible Logic on an Embedded Microcontroller. In Proc. 10th International Conference on Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, June 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Gardenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. Gardenfors and D. Makinson. Nonmonotonic Inference Based on Expectations. Artificial Intelligence 65 (1994): 197–245.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. A. Ghose and R. Goebel. Belief states as default theories: Studies in non-prioritized belief change. In Proc. ECAI’98.

    Google Scholar 

  10. G. Gottlob. Complexity Results for Nonmonotonic Logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 2, 3 (1992): 397–425.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. W. L. Harper. Rational Conceptual Change. In PSA 1976, Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, 462–494.

    Google Scholar 

  12. H. A. Kautz and B. Selman. Hard problems for simple default logics. Artificial Intelligence 49 (1991):243–279.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. I. Levi. Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese 34, 423–455, 1977.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Luqi and D. E. Cooke. How to Combine Nonmonotonic Logic and Rapid Proto-typing to Help Maintain Software. International Journal on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 5, 1 (1995): 89–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. M. J. Maher, G. Antoniou and D. Billington. A Study of Provability in Defeasible Logic. In Proc. 11th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 1502, Springer 1998, 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Nute. Defeasible Reasoning. In Proc. 20th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, IEEE Press 1987, 470–477.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. A. Williams and N. Foo. Nonmonotonic Dynamics of Default Logics. In Proc. 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1990, 702–707.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. A. Williams and G. Antoniou. A Strategy for Revising Default Theory Extensions. in Proc. 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Represenation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Zowghi and R. Offen. A Logical Framework for Modeling and Reasoning about the Evolution of Requirements. In Proc. Third International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Press 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing and Information Technology, Griffith University, QLD 4111, Australia

    D. Billington, G. Antoniou, G. Governatori & M. Maher

Authors
  1. D. Billington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Antoniou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Governatori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Maher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informatik III, Universität Bonn, Römerstraße 164, D-53117, Bonn, Germany

    Wolfram Burgard  & Armin B. Cremers  & 

  2. GMD-Forschungszentrum Informationstechnik GmbH, Schloß Birlinghoven, D-53754, Sankt Augustin, Germany

    Thomas Cristaller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Billington, D., Antoniou, G., Governatori, G., Maher, M. (1999). Revising Nonmonotonic Theories: The Case of Defeasible Logic. In: Burgard, W., Cremers, A.B., Cristaller, T. (eds) KI-99: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. KI 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1701. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48238-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48238-5_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66495-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48238-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation