Abstract
PDF (408 K)
E-mail Article
Add to my Quick Links
Cited By in Scopus (6)
doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00134-5 
Copyright © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
An argument-based approach to reasoning with specificity
Phan Minh Dung
, a and Tran Cao Son
, , b
Received 17 December 1999;
Abstract
We present a new priority-based approach to reasoning with specificity which subsumes inheritance reasoning. The new approach differs from other priority-based approaches in the literature in the way priority between defaults is handled. Here, it is conditional rather than unconditional as in other approaches. We show that any unconditional handling of priorities between defaults as advocated in the literature until now is not sufficient to capture general defeasible inheritance reasoning. We propose a simple and novel argumentation semantics for reasoning with specificity taking the conditionality of the priorities between defaults into account. Since the proposed argumentation semantics is a form of stable semantics of nonmonotonic reasoning, it inherits a common problem of the latter where it is not always defined for every default theory. We propose a class of stratified default theories for which the argumentation semantics is always defined. We also show that acyclic and consistent inheritance networks are stratified. We prove that the argumentation semantics satisfies the basic properties of a nonmonotonic consequence relation such as deduction, reduction, conditioning, and cumulativity for well-defined and stratified default theories. We give a modular and polynomial transformation of default theories with specificity into semantically equivalent Reiter default theories.
Author Keywords: Default reasoning; Specificity; Argumentation; Reasoning with specificity
References
1. J.J. Alferes and L.M. Pereira Reasoning with Logic ProgrammingLecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1111, Springer, Berlin (1996).
2. F. Baader and B. Hollunder , How to prefer more specific defaults in terminological default logic. In: Proc. IJCAI-93, Chambéry, France, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1993), pp. 669–674.
3. A. Bondarenko, P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni , An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 97 (1997), pp. 63–101. Article | 
PDF (3273 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (88)
4. G. Brewka , Cumulative default logic: In defense of nonmonotonic inference rules. Artificial Intelligence 50 (1992), pp. 183–205.
5. G. Brewka , Adding priorities and specificity to default logic. In: Proc. European Workshop on Logics in AI (JELIA'94)Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 838, Springer, Berlin (1994), pp. 247–260.
6. G. Brewka , Reasoning about priorities in default logic. In: Proc. AAAI-94, Seattle, WA, AAAI Press (1994), pp. 940–945. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)
7. G. Brewka and T. Eiter , Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 109 (1999), pp. 297–356. Abstract | PDF (442 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (71)
8. J.P. Delgrande and T.H. Schaub , Compiling specificity into approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 90 (1997), pp. 301–348. Article | PDF (3168 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)
9. J.P. Delgrande and T.H. Schaub , A general approach to specificity in default reasoning. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-94), Bonn, Germany, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1994), pp. 47–158.
10. Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel and F. Toni , Preferred arguments are harder to compute than stable extensions. In: Proc. IJCAI-99, Stockholm, Sweden, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1999), pp. 36–41.
11. Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel and F. Toni , Finding admissible and preferred arguments can be very hard. In: T. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia and B. Selman, Editors, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2000), Breckenridge, CO, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (2000), pp. 53–61.
12. P.M. Dung , Negation as hypothesis: An abductive foundation for logic programming. In: K. Furukawa, Editor, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'91), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1991), pp. 3–17. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (34)
13. P.M. Dung , On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77 (1995), pp. 321–357. Article | PDF (2531 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (250)
14. P.M. Dung and T.C. Son , Nonmonotonic inheritance, argumentation, and logic programming. In: Proc. 3rd International Conference on Logic Programming and NonMonotonic Reasoning Conference (LPNMR'95)Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 928, Springer, Berlin (1995), pp. 316–329.
15. P.M. Dung and T.C. Son , An argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning with specificity. In: Proc. 5th International Conference on Knowledge Representation Reasoning (KR-96), Cambridge, MA, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1996), pp. 407–418.
16. P.M. Dung and T.C. Son , Default reasoning with specificity. In: Proc. First International Conference on Computational Logic (CL'00)Lecture Notes in Computes Science 1861, Springer, Berlin (2000), pp. 792–805.
17. P.M. Dung and T.C. Son An argument-based approach to reasoning with specificity, Technical Report, Computer Science Department, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM (March 2001).
18. M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson Computers and Intractability—A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, Freeman, San Francisco, CA (1979).
19. P. Geerts and D. Vermeir , A nonmonotonic reasoning formalism using implicit specificity information. In: Proc. 2th International Conference on Logic Programming NonMonotonic Reasoning Conference (LPNMR'93), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1993), pp. 380–396.
20. H. Geffner and J. Pearl , Conditional entailment: Bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53 (1992), pp. 209–244. Abstract | PDF (2033 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (48)
21. M. Gelfond and T.C. Son , Prioritized default theory. In: Selected Papers from the Workshop on Logic Programming Knowledge Representation 1997Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1471, Springer, Berlin (1998), pp. 164–223.
22. M. Goldszmidt and J. Pearl , Qualitative probabilities for default reasoning, belief revision, and causal modeling. Artificial Intelligence 84 1–2 (1996), pp. 57–112. Article | PDF (4044 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (40)
23. J.F. Horty , Some direct theories of non-monotonic inheritance. In: D. Gabbay, C. Hogger and J. Robinson, Editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994), pp. 111–187.
24. A.C. Kakas, R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni , The role of abduction in logic programming. In: D. Gabbay, C. Hogger and J. Robinson, Editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming 5, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998), pp. 235–324.
25. A.C. Kakas and F. Toni , Computing argumentation in logic programming. J. Logic Comput. 9 (1999), pp. 515–562. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (27)
26. J.F. Horty, R.H. Thomason and D.S. Touretzky , A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks. Artificial Intelligence 42 (1987), pp. 311–348.
27. K. Konolige , Hierarchic autoepistemic theories for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proc. AAAI-88, St. Paul, MN, AAAI Press (1988), pp. 439–443.
28. S. Kraus, D. Lehmann and M. Magidor , Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44 (1990), pp. 167–207. Abstract | PDF (2136 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (256)
29. V. Lifschitz , Computing circumscription. In: Proc. IJCAI-85, Los Angeles, CA, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1985), pp. 121–127.
30. W. Marek and M. Truszczy
ski Nonmonotonic Logic: Context Dependent Reasoning, Springer, Berlin (1993).
31. D. Matkinson and K. Schlechta , Floating conclusion and zombie paths: Two deep difficulties in the ‘directly skeptical’ approach to defeasible inheritance nets. Artificial Intelligence 48 (1989), pp. 99–209.
32. J. McCarthy , Circumscription—A form of nonmonotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13 1–2 (1980), pp. 27–39 171–172 . Abstract | PDF (1148 K)
33. J. McCarthy , Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence 26 3 (1986), pp. 89–116. Abstract | PDF (1214 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (161)
34. D. McDermott and J. Doyle , Nonmonotonic logic I. Artificial Intelligence 13 1–2 (1980), pp. 41–72. Abstract | PDF (2956 K)
35. Y. Moinard , Preference by specificity in default logic. In: ESPRIT Project DRUMS RP1 1st Workshop, Marseille, France (February 1990).
36. R. Moore , Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence 25 1 (1985), pp. 75–94. Abstract | PDF (1148 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (151)
37. I. Niemelä , Towards efficient default reasoning. In: Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, Quebec, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1995), pp. 312–318.
38. J. Pearl , System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proc. 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK'90) (1990), pp. 121–135.
39. J.L. Pollock , Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Sci. 17 (1987), pp. 481–518. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (84)
40. D. Poole , On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. In: Proc. IJCAI-85, Los Angeles, CA, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1985), pp. 144–147.
41. H. Prakken and G.A.W. Vreeswijk , Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: D. Gabbay, Editor, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991).
42. R. Reiter , A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13 1–2 (1980), pp. 81–132. Abstract | PDF (4152 K)
43. R. Reiter and G. Criscuolo , On interacting defaults. In: Proc. IJCAI-81, Vancouver, BC, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1981), pp. 270–276. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (27)
44. E. Sandewall , Nonmonotonic inference rules for multiple inheritance with exceptions. Proc. IEEE 74 10 (1986), pp. 1345–1353. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (11)
45. B. Selman and H.J. Levesque , The complexity of path-based defeasible inheritance. Artificial Intelligence 62 2 (1993), pp. 303–340.
46. G.R. Simari and R.P. Loui , A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 52 (1992), pp. 125–257.
47. G. Simonet , On Sandewall's paper: Nonmonotonic inference rules for multiple inheritance with exceptions. Artificial Intelligence 86 2 (1996), pp. 359–374. Article | PDF (1252 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)
48. G. Simonet and R. Ducournau , On Stein's paper: Resolving ambiguity in nonmonotonic inheritance hierarchies. Artificial Intelligence 71 (1994), pp. 183–193. Abstract | PDF (605 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)
49. L.A. Stein , Resolving ambiguity in nonmonotonic inheritance hierarchies. Artificial Intelligence 55 (1993), pp. 259–310.
50. M. Thielscher , A nonmonotonic disputation-based semantics and proof procedure for logic programs. In: M. Maher, Editor, Proc. 1996 Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, Bonn, Germany, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2000), pp. 483–497.
51. D. Touretzky The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1986).
52. G.A.W. Vreeswijk , The feasibility of defeat in defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Representation Reasoning (KR-91), Cambridge, MA, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA (1991), pp. 478–483.
53. J.H. You, X. Wang and L.Y. Yuan , Compiling defeasible inheritance networks to general logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 113 1 (1999), pp. 247–268. Abstract | PDF (217 K)
| View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)
Corresponding author; email: tson@cs.nmsu.edu
