Abstract
In nonmonotonic reasoning conflicts among defaults are ubiquitous. For instance, more specific rules may be in conflict with more general ones, a problem which has been studied intensively in the context of inheritance networks (Poole, 1985; Touretzky, 1986; Touretzky et al., 1991). When defaults are used for representing design goals in configuration tasks conflicts naturally arise. The same is true in model based diagnosis where defaults are used to represent the assumption that components typically are ok. In legal reasoning conflicts among rules are very common (Prakken, 1993) and keep many lawyers busy (and rich).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Baader, F. and Hollunder, B. (1995). Priorities on Defaults with Prerequisite and their Application in Treating Specificity in Terminological Default Logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 15: 41–68.
Benferhat, S., Cayrol, C., Dubois, D., Lang, J., and Prade, H. (1993). Inconsistency Management and Prioritized Syntax-Based Entailment. In Bajcsy, R., editor, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93),pages 640–645. Morgan Kaufman.
Brewka, G. (1989). Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning. In Proceedings IJCAI ’89, pages 1043–1048.
Brewka, G. (1994a). Adding Priorities and Specificity to Default Logic. In Proceedings JELIA ’84,LNAI 838, pages 247–260. Springer.
Brewka, G. (1994b). Reasoning About Priorities in Default Logic. In Proceedings AAAI ’84, pages 940–945.
Brewka, G. (1996). Well-Founded Semantics for Extended Logic Programs with Dynamic Preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4: 19–36.
Brewka, G. and Eiter, T. (1998). Preferred Answer Sets for Extended Logic Programs. In Cohn, A., Schubert, L., and Shapiro, S., editors, Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-98), pages 86–97.
Brewka, G. and Eiter, T. (1999). Preferred Answer Sets for Extended Logic Programs. Artificial Intelligence, to appear.
Delgrande, J. and Schaub, T. (1994). A General Approach to Specificity in Default Reasoning. In Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-94), pages 146–157.
Delgrande, J. and Schaub, T. (1997). Compiling Reasoning With and About Preferences into Default Logic. In Proceedings IJCAI ’87, pages 168–174.
Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. (1995). The Complexity of Logic-Based Abduction. Journal of the ACM, 42 (1): 342.
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1988). The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In Logic Programming: Proceedings Fifth Intl Conference and Symposium, pages 1070–1080, Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
Gelfond, M., Przymusinska, H., and Przymusinski, T. (1989). On the Relationship Between Circumscription and Negation as Failure. Artificial Intelligence, 38: 75–94.
Gelfond, M. and Son, T. (1998). Reasoning with Prioritized Defaults. In Selected Papers presented at the Workshop on Logic Programming and Knowledge Representation (LPKR ’87), Port Je f ferson,volume 1471 of LNAI,pages 164–223. Springer.
Gottlob, G. (1992). Complexity Results for Nonmonotonic Logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2 (3): 397–425.
Konolige, K. (1988). Hierarchic Autoepistemic Theories for Nonmonotonic Reasoning. In Proceedings AAAI ’88, pages 439–443.
Marek, W. and Truszczydski, M. (1993). Nonmonotonic Logics–Context-Dependent Reasoning. Springer. McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription–A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13: 27–39.
Moore, R. (1985). Semantical Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logics. Artificial Intelligence, 25: 75–94.
Nebel, B. (1998). How Hard is it to Revise a Belief Base ? In Dubois, D. and Prade, H., editors, Handbook on Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems,volume III: Belief Change, pages 77–145. Kluwer Academic.
Nute, D. (1994). Defeasible Logic. In Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., and Robinson, J., editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume III, pages 353–395. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Poole, D. (1985). On the Comparison of Theories: Preferring the Most Specific Explanation. In Proceedings IJCAI ’85, pages 144–147.
Prakken, H. (1993). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Reiter, R. (1980). A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13: 81–132.
Rintanen, J. (1995). On Specificity in Default Logic. In Mellish, C., editor, Proceedings IJCAI ’85,pages 1474–1479. AAAI Press.
Rintanen, J. (1998). Lexicographic Priorities in Default Logic. Artificial Intelligence, 106: 221–265.
Sakama, C. and Inoue, K. (1996). Representing Priorities in Logic Programs. In Proceedings IJCSLP-96, pages 82–96, Bonn, Germany. MIT-Press.
Touretzky, D. (1986). The Mathematics of Inheritance. Pitman Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence, London.
Touretzky, D., Thomason, R., and Horty, J. (1991). A Skeptic’s Menagerie: Conflictors, Preemptors, Reinstaters, and Zombies in Nonmonotonic Inheritance. In Proceedings IJCAI ‘81, pages 478–485.
Zhang, Y. and Foo, N. (1997). Answer Sets for Prioritized Logic Programs. In Proceedings ILPS 97, pages 69–83.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brewka, G., Eiter, T. (2000). Prioritizing Default Logic. In: Hölldobler, S. (eds) Intellectics and Computational Logic. Applied Logic Series, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9383-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9383-0_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5438-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9383-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive