Abstract
Recent research by Delgrande [6] and Geffner and Pearl [10] suggests two different semantic interpretations for normal defaults with one single representation as conditional sentences. However, they both need additional formal mechanisms for handling irrelevant information when their approaches are applied to formalising default reasoning. Delgrande in [5, 6] suggests two meta-strategies which he considers to be adequately strong to handle the orderings of defaults, and he claims they are equivalent. Furthermore, each of Delgrande's strategies is defined in terms of all sentences of the object language. In this paper, we shall prove that Delgrande's claim that his meta-strategies are equivalent is incorrect and that one of his meta-strategies can be reformulated within the framework of First Order Predicate Calculus (FOPC) and without having to consider every sentence of the object language. One advantage of such a reformalisation is its computational simplicity: to give an extension of a default theory there is only a need to consider those sentences which occur in the default theory under consideration rather than every sentence in the object language; furthermore, to provide a proof procedure for Delgrande's system as based on the meta-strategy we have formalised, one need only employ a FOPC proof procedure, rather than a conditional one.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
E. Adams, The Logic of Conditionals, edited by D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1975.
D.G. Borbow and T. Winograd, “An overview of KRLL: A knowledge representation language,” Cognitive Science, vol. 1, pp. 3–46, 1977.
R. Brachman, “On the epistemological status of semantic networks,” in Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, edited by N.V. Findler, Academic Press: New York, pp. 3–50, 1979.
G. Brewka, “Nonmonotonic reasoning from theoretical foundations to efficient computation,” Ph.D. Thesis, Draft Version, 1988.
J.P. Delgrande, “A first-order logic for prototypical properties,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 105–130, 1987.
J.P. Delgrande, “An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic: Revised report,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, pp. 63–90, 1988.
D.W. Etherington, “Reasoning with incomplete information,” Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Pitman: London, 1988.
D.W. Etherington and R. Reiter, “On inheritance hierarchies with exceptions,” Proceeding of the AAAI, Seattle, 1983, pp. 104–108.
S.E. Fahlman, NETL: A System for Representing and Using Real-World Knowledge, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1979.
H. Geffner and J. Pearl, “A framework for reasoning with defaults,” UCLA Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Technical Report 870058 (R-94), March 1988.
M.L. Ginsberg, “A circumscriptive theorem prover,” Second International Workshop on NonMonotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 346, Springer-Verlag, 1989, pp. 100–115.
M.L. Ginsberg, “A local formalization of inheritance: Preliminary report,” Third International Workshop on NonMonotonic Reasoning, South Lake Tahoe: California, 1990, pp. 119–129.
G. Hendrix, “Expanding the utility of semantic networks through partioning,” Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1975, pp. 115–121.
V. Lifschitz, “On the dectarative semantics of logic programs with negation,” in Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, edited by J. Minker, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: Los Angeles, CA, 1987.
W. Lukaszewicz, “Two results on default logic,” Proceeding of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, 1985, pp. 459–461.
N. Obeid and M. Fang, “On some aspects of default reasoning,” 4th Australian Joint Conference on AI, Perth, Western Australia, 1990.
D.L. Poole, “A logical system for default reasoning,” AAAI Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NY, pp. 373–384, 1984.
D.L. Poole, “On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation,” IJCAI-9, pp. 144–147, 1985.
D.L. Poole, “A logical framework for default reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, pp. 27–47, 1988.
T. Przymusinsky, “Query Answering in circumscriptive and closed world theories,” Fifth American Association ofor Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, PA, 1986, pp. 186–190.
T. Przymusinsky, “On the realtionship between logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning,” Seventh American Association ofor Artificial Intelligence, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1988.
R. Reiter, “A logic for default reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 13, 1980.
D.E. Rumelhart and D.A. Norman, “Active semantic networks as a model of human memory,” Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA, 1973, pp. 470–476.
B. Selman and H. Kautz, “The complexity of model-preference default theories,” Second International, Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 346, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1989, pp. 115–130.
D.S. Touretzky, The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems, Pitman: London, 1986.
R. Turner, Logics for Artificial Intelligence, Ellis Horwood Limited, pp. 59–76, 1984.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Obeid, N. A proof procedure for normal default theories. Appl Intell 6, 165–175 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117816
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117816