Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A First Order Logic Benchmark for Defeasible Reasoning Tool Profiling

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Rules and Reasoning (RuleML+RR 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11092))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper we are interested in the task of a data engineer choosing what tool to use to perform defeasible reasoning with a first order logic knowledge base. To this end we propose the first benchmark in the literature that allows one to classify first order defeasible reasoning tools based on their semantics, expressiveness and performance.

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 EPUB and 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    The minimal superset of the languages used in first order logic defeasible reasoning.

  2. 2.

    Variables are denoted by uppercase letters X, Y, Z, etc., constants by lowercase letters a, b, c, etc., and unknown constants (nulls) by \(null_1, null_2,etc\).

  3. 3.

    http://graphik-team.github.io/graal/kiabora.

  4. 4.

    http://aspic.cossac.org.

  5. 5.

    https://github.com/hamhec/DEFT.

  6. 6.

    http://lidia.cs.uns.edu.ar/delp_client.

  7. 7.

    https://github.com/anoConf/Benchmark.

References

  1. Antoniou, G.: Defeasible reasoning: a discussion of some intuitions. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 21(6), 545–558 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic (TOCL) 2(2), 255–287 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Maher, M.J.: On the analysis of regulations using defeasible rules. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, HICSS-32, pp. 7–23. IEEE (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Apt, K.R., Van Emden, M.H.: Contributions to the theory of logic programming. J. ACM (JACM) 29(3), 841–862 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Baget, J.-F., Garreau, F., Mugnier, M.-L., Rocher, S.: Extending acyclicity notions for existential rules. In: ECAI, pp. 39–44 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baget, J.-F., Leclère, M., Mugnier, M.-L., Salvat, E.: On rules with existential variables: walking the decidability line. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1620–1654 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: A defeasible logic reasoner for the semantic web. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst. (IJSWIS) 2(1), 1–41 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bikakis, A., Antoniou, G.: DR-Prolog: a system for reasoning with rules and ontologies on the semantic web. In: AAAI, vol. 5, pp. 1594–1595 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Billington, D.: Defeasible logic is stable. J. Logic Comput. 3(4), 379–400 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Bryant, D., Krause, P.: A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 23(03), 227–260 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cali, A., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Advanced processing for ontological queries. Proce. VLDB Endowment 3(1–2), 554–565 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theor. Pract. Logic programm. 4(1 + 2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Garcia, D.R., Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Planning and defeasible reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 856–858. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J. Logic Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Hecham, A., Croitoru, M., Bisquert, P.: Argumentation-based defeasible reasoning for existential rules. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 1568–1569 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Horty, J.F., Touretzky, D.S., Thomason, R.H.: A clash of intuitions: the current state of nonmonotonic multiple inheritance systems. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 476–482 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lenzerini, M.: Data integration: a theoretical perspective. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 233–246. ACM (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Maher, M.J., Rock, A., Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Miller, T.: Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 10(04), 483–501 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Makinson, D., Schlechta, K.: Floating conclusions and zombie paths: two deep difficulties in the “directly skeptical” approach to defeasible inheritance nets. Artif. Intell. 48(2), 199–209 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Morgenstern, L.: Artificial intelligence inheritance comes of age: applying nonmonotonic techniques to problems in industry. Artif. Intell. 103, 237–271 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nute, D.: Defeasible reasoning: a philosophical analysis in prolog. In: Fetzer, J.H. (ed.) Aspects of Artificial Intelligence. Studies in Cognitive Systems, vol. 1, pp. 251–288. Springer, Dordrecht (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2699-8_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Prakken, H.: Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies. In: Ninth International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 91–99. Toulouse (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stein, L.A.: Resolving ambiguity in nonmonotonic inheritance hierarchies. Artif. Intell. 55(2–3), 259–310 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Thimm, M.: Tweety - a comprehensive collection of java libraries for logical aspects of artificial intelligence and knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2014) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wan, H., Kifer, M., Grosof, B.N.: Defeasibility in answer set programs with defaults and argumentation rules. Semant. Web 6(1), 81–98 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yang, G., Kifer, M., Zhao, C.: \(\cal{F}\)lora-2: a rule-based knowledge representation and inference infrastructure for the semantic web. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Schmidt, D.C. (eds.) OTM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2888, pp. 671–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39964-3_43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LIRMM, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Abdelraouf Hecham & Madalina Croitoru

  2. INRA, Montpellier, France

    Pierre Bisquert

Authors
  1. Abdelraouf Hecham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madalina Croitoru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pierre Bisquert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdelraouf Hecham .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christoph Benzmüller

  2. University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Francesco Ricca

  3. Université du Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Xavier Parent

  4. SINTEF/University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Dumitru Roman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hecham, A., Croitoru, M., Bisquert, P. (2018). A First Order Logic Benchmark for Defeasible Reasoning Tool Profiling. In: Benzmüller, C., Ricca, F., Parent, X., Roman, D. (eds) Rules and Reasoning. RuleML+RR 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11092. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99906-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99906-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99905-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99906-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation