Abstract
The concept of prioritization, either implicitly or explicitly, has been generally recognized as a tool to eliminate spurious extensions. Implicit priority information can be used when specificity is the preference criterion by means of which extensions are selected. Sometimes, it is necessary to take other preference criteria into account, and explicit means of expressing priorities are required. Here we present an argument based approach to nonmonotonic reasoning, in which implicit and explicit priorities are combined. The idea is that arguments are ranked according to a preference relation based on implicit specificity information. Additional explicit priorities can be supplied by the user, so that specificity can be considered as the preference criterion by default.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
G. Brewka, “Preferred Subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning,” in Proceedings IJCAI-89, 1989.
G. Brewka, “Adding priorities and specificity to default logic.,” Technical report, GMD, 1993.
G. Brewka, “Reasoning about priorities in default logic,” in Proceedings AAAI '94, pp. 940–945, Seattle, 1994.
J.P. Delgrande and T.H. Schaub, “A general approach to specificity in default reasoning,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'94, pp. 146–157, Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.
P. Geerts and D. Vermeir, “Prioritization in nonmonotonic reasoning and ordered logic: a comparative study,” Technical Report 94-15, 1994.
P. Geerts, D. Nute, and D. Vermeir, “Ordered logic: defeasible reasoning for multiple agents,” in Decision Support Systems, vol. 11, pp. 157–190, 1994.
H. Geffner, in Default Reasoning: Causal and Conditional Theories, The MIT Press, 1992.
M. Goldszmidt and J. Pearl, “System Z+: a formalism for reasoning with variable-strength defaults,” in Proceedings AAAI-91; PP. 399–404, 1991.
B.N. Grosof, “Generalizing Prioritization,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'91, pp. 289–300, 1991.
R. Loui, “Defeat among arguments: A system of defeasible inference,” Computational Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 100–106, 1987.
D. Nute, “Basic defeasible logic,” in Intensional Logics for Logic Programming, ed. L. Farinas del Cerro, M. Pentonnen, pp. 125–154, Oxford University Press, 1992.
J. Pearl, “System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to non-monotonic reasoning,” in Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK-III), pp. 121–135, Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.
J.L. Pollock, “Defeasible reasoning,” Cognitive Science, vol. 11, pp. 481–518, 1987.
D. Poole, “On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation,” in Proceedings IJCAI-85, pp. 144–147, 1985.
G. Simari and R. Loui, “A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 53, pp. 125–157, 1992.
D. Vermeir, P. Geerts, and D. Nute, “A logic for Defeasible Perspectives,” in Proceedings of the Tubingen workshop on semantic nets, inheritance and nonmonotonic reasoning, Tubingen, 1989.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Geerts, P., Vermeir, D. (1995). Specificity by default. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty. ECSQARU 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 946. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60112-0_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60112-0_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-60112-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49438-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive