Skip to main content

Beyond specificity

  • 4. Non-Monotonic Reasoning
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Uncertainty in Knowledge Bases (IPMU 1990)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 521))

  • 141 Accesses

Abstract

A number of writers have suggested that specificity can be called upon to adjudicate competing default inferences. In the foundations of statistics, specificity is one of several ways to adjudicate the claims of competing reference classes. This suggests that in default inferences also other principles than specificity may be needed. This paper gives examples substantiating this suggestion, and provides formulations of the few other principles needed.

Research on which this work was based was supported in part under a contract from the U. S. Army Signal Warfare Center.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bacchus, Fahiem:(1988) “A Heterogeneous Inheritance System Based on Probabilities,” mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etherington, David W.: (1987) “More on Inheritance Hierarchies with Exceptions: Default Theories and Inferential Distance,” AAAI-87, Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, 352–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, Carl G.: (1968) “Maximal Specificity and Lawlikeness in Probabilisitic Explanation,” Philosophy of Science 35, 116–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg, Henry E., Jr.: (1988) “Probabilistic Inference and Non-Monotonic Inference,” Shachter, Ross, and Levitt, Todd (eds): The Fourth Workshop on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp 229–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg, Henry E., Jr.: (1983) “The Reference Class,” Philosophy of Science 50, pp 374–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg, Henry E.,Jr.: (1970) “More on Maximal Specificity,” Philosophy of Science 37, pp.295–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neufeld, Eric, and Poole, David: (1988) “Probabilistic Semantics and Defaults,” Shachter, Ross, and Levitt, Todd (eds): The Fourth Workshop on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1988, pp 275–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nute, Donald (1989) “Defeasible Logic and Inheritance Hierarchies with Exceptions.”

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, David L.: (1985) “On the Comparison of Theories: Preferring the Most Specific Explanation,” IJCAI 85, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 144–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, Hans (1949) The Theory of Probability, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touretzky, D. S., Horty, J. F., and Thomason, R. H.: (1987) “A Clash of Intuitions: the Current State of Non-Monotonic Multiple Inheritance Systems,” IJCAI-1987, 476–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touretzky, D. S.: (1984) “Implicit Ordering of Defaults in Inheritance Systems,” AAAI-84, 322–325.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Bernadette Bouchon-Meunier Ronald R. Yager Lotfi A. Zadeh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1991 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kyburg, H.E. (1991). Beyond specificity. In: Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R., Zadeh, L.A. (eds) Uncertainty in Knowledge Bases. IPMU 1990. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 521. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0028105

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0028105

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-54346-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47580-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics