Abstract
In the last 15 years, several default reasoning systems have been proposed to deal with rules having exceptions. Each of these systems has been shown to be either cautious (where some intuitive conclusions do not follow from the default base), or adventurous (some debatable conclusions are inferred). However, the cautiousness and the adventurous aspect of these systems are often due to the incomplete way of describing our knowledge, and that plausible conclusions depend on the meaning (semantics) assigned to propositional symbols. This paper mainly contains two parts. The first part discusses, with simple default bases (where the used symbols have no a priori meaning), which assumptions are assumed when a given conclusion is considered as intuitive. The second part investigates a local approach to deal with default rules of the form “generally, if α then β” having possibly some exceptions. The idea is that when a conflict appears (due to observing exceptional situations), we first localize the sets of pieces of information which are responsible for conflicts. Next, using a new definition of specificity, we attach priorities to default rules inside each conflict. Lastly, three proposals are made to solve conflicts and restore the consistency of the knowledge base. A comparative study with some existing systems is given.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang & H. Prade (1993). Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. Proc. of the 13th Intern. Joint Conf. on A. I. (IJCAI'93). 640–645.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois & H. Prade (1994). Expressing Independence in a Possibilistic Framework and its Application to Default Reasoning. Proc. of the 11th European Conf. on A. I. (ECAI'94). 150–154.
S. Benferhat, A. Saffiotti & P. Smets (1995) Belief functions and default reasoning. Proc. of the 11th conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'95). 19–26.
C. Boutilier (1992). What is a Default priority?. Proc. of the 9th Canadian Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AI'92). 140–147.
G. Brewka (1989). Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. Proc. of the 11th Intern. Joint Conf. on A. I. (IJCAI'89). 1043–1048.
J. P. Delgrande & T. H. Schaub (1994). A general approach to specificity in default reasoning. Proc. of the 4th Intern. Conf. on Princ. of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94). 146–157.
D. Dubois, J. Lang & H. Prade (1994). Possibilistic logic. In: Handbook of Logic in A. I. and Logic Programming, vol. 3. Oxford University Press. 439–513.
P.M. Dung (1993). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. Proc. of the 13th Intern. Joint Conf. on A. I. (IJCAI'93). 852–857.
D. Gabbay (1985). Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems. In: Logics and models of Concurrent Systems. Springer Verlag. Berlin. 439–457.
P. Gärdenfors & D. Makinson (1994). Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations. In: Artificial Intelligence, 65. 197–245.
H. Geffner (1992). Default reasoning: causal and conditional theories. MIT Press.
S. Kraus, D. Lehmann & M. Magidor (1990). Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. In: Artificial Intelligence, 44. 167–207.
D. Lehmann (1993). Another perspective on default reasoning. Technical report. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
D. Lehmann & M. Magidor (1992). What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence, 55. 1–60.
Y. Moinard (1987). Donner la préférence au défaut le plus spécifique. Actes du 6éme congrés AFCET-RFIA. 1123–1132.
J. Pearl (1990). System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to default reasoning. Proc. of the 3rd Conf. on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK'90). 121–135.
R. Reiter (1980). A logic for default reasoning. In: Artificial Intelligence, 13. 81–132.
R. Reiter & Criscuolo (1981). On interacting defaults. Proc. of the 7th Intern. Joint Conf. on A. I. (IJCAI'81). 270–276.
G. R. Simari & R. P. Loui (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53. 125–157.
D. S. Touretzky (1984). Implicit ordering of defaults in inheritance systems. Proc. of the 1984 National Conf. on A. I. (AAAI'84). 322–325.
M. A. Williams (1996). Towards a Practical Approach to Belief Revision: Reason-Based Change. Proc. of the 5th Intern. Conf. on Princ. of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'96).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Benferhat, S., Garcia, L. (1997). A coherence-based approach to default reasoning. In: Gabbay, D.M., Kruse, R., Nonnengart, A., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning. FAPR ECSQARU 1997 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1244. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035611
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035611
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63095-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69129-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive