Abstract
Reasoning almost always occurs in the face of incomplete information. Such reasoning is nonmonotonic in the sense that conclusions drawn may later be withdrawn when additional information is obtained. There is an active literature on the problem of modeling such nonmonotonic reasoning, yet no category of method-let alone a single method-has been broadly accepted as the right approach. This paper introduces a new method, called sweeping presumptions, for modeling nonmonotonic reasoning. The main goal of the paper is to provide an example-driven, nontechnical introduction to the method of sweeping presumptions, and thereby to make it plausible that sweeping presumptions can usefully be applied to the problems of nonmonotonic reasoning. The paper discusses a representative sample of examples that have appeared in the literature on nonmonotonic reasoning, and discusses them from the point of view of sweeping presumptions.
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
Audi, R. (1988), Belief, Justification, and Knowledge, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.
Causey, R. L. (1991), ‘EVID: A System for Interactive Defeasible Reasoning’, forthcoming in Decision Support Systems.
Elliott, J. R. and Kimbrough, S. O. (1990), ‘A Graph-Based Theorem Prover for Sentence Logic Model Management’, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Decision Sciences, working paper 90-01-01.
Genesereth, M. R. and NilssonN. J. (1987). Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
Ginsberg, M. L. (1987), ‘Introduction’, in M. L.Ginsberg (ed.), Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 1–24.
Hanks, S. and Mc Dermott, D. (1986), ‘Default Reasoning, Non-monotonic Logics, and the Frame Problem’, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 328–333.
Hanks, S. and Mc Dermott, D. (1987), ‘Default Logic and Temporal Projection’, Artificial Intelligence 33, pp. 379–413.
Harman, G. (1973), Thought, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harman, G. (1986), Change in View, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, Kimbrough, S. O. (1986), ‘A Graph Representation for Management of Logic Models’, Decision Support Systems 2, 27–37.
Kimbrough, S. O. (1991), ‘An introduction to the Method of Sweeping Presumptions for Modeling Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, in J. F.NunamakerJr. (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. III. DSS and Knowledge-Based Systems and Collaboration Technology Tracks, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 339–348.
Kimbrough, S. O. and AdamsF. (1988), ‘Why Nonmonotonic Logic?’, Decision Support Systems 4, pp. 111–27.
Kyburg, H., Loui, R., and Carlson, G. (eds.) (1990), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lifschitz, V. (1989), ‘Benchmark Problems for Formal Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, in M.Reinfrank, J.deKleer, M. L.Ginsberg, and E.Sandewell (eds.), Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 202–219.
Loui, R. (1989), ‘Benchmark Problems for Nonmonotonic Systems’, distributed at the Workshop on Defeasible Reasoning with Specificity and Multiple Inheritance, St. Louis, MO, April 7–9, 1989.
Mc Dermott, D. and Doyle, J. (1980), ‘Nonmonotonic Logic I’, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 41–72.
Nute, D. (1988), ‘Defeasible Reasoning and Decision Support Systems’, Decision Support Systems 4, pp. 97–110.
Nute, D. (1989), ‘Review of Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Philosophical Psychology 2, pp. 351–355.
Nute, D. (1990), ‘Defeasible Logic and the Frame Problem’, in H.Kyburg, R.Loui, and G.Carlson (ed.), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1–21.
Nute, D. and Lewis, M. (1986), ‘d-Prolog: A User's Manual’, ACMC Research Report 01-0017, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Pearl, J. (1988), Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
Pollock, J. L. (1986), Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pollock, J. L. (1987), ‘Defeasible Reasoning’, Cognitive Science 11, pp. 481–518.
Pollock, J. L. (1989), How to Build a Person: A Prolegomenon, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1953), ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, in W. V. O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 20–46.
Reiter, R. (1980), ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 81–132.
Roehrig, S. F. (1991), ‘A General Numerical Approach to the Benchmark Problems in Defeasible Reasoning’, in J. F.NunamakerJr. (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. III, DSS and Knowledge-Based Systems and Collaboration Technology Tracks, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 329–338.
Shafer, G. and Pearl, J. (eds.) (1990), Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
Shastri, L. (1988), Semantics Networks: An Evidential Formalization and Its Connectionist Realization, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
Toulmin, S. (1958), The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Touretzky, D. S. (1986), The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
Touretzky, D. S., Horty, J. F., and Thomason, R. H. (1987), ‘A Clash of Intuitions: The Current State of Nonmonotonic Multiple Inheritance Systems’, IJCAI-10, pp. 476–482.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kimbrough, S.O., Hua, H. On nonmonotonic reasoning with the method of sweeping presumptions. Minds and Machines 1, 393–416 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352917
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352917