Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consistency Defaults

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A consistency default is a propositional inference rule that asserts the consistency of a formula in its consequence. Consistency defaults allow for a straightforward encoding of domains in which it is explicitely known when something is possible. The logic of consistency defaults can be seen as a variant of cumulative default logic or as a generalization of justified default logic; it is also able to simulate Reiter default logic in the seminormal case. A semantical characterization of consistency defaults in terms of processes and in terms of a fixpoint equation is given, as well as a normal form.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alchourrón C.E., Gächange P., Makinson D. (1985) ‘On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions’. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Besnard, P., and T. Schaub, ‘A context-based framework for default logics’, Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’93), 1993, pp. 406–411.

  3. Besnard P., Schaub T. ‘An approach to context-based default reasoning’, Fundamenta Informaticae, 23 (1995), 2–4, 175–223.

  4. Brewka G. (1991) ‘Cumulative default logic: in defense of nonmonotonic inference rules’. Artificial Intelligence, 50(2):183–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cadoli M., Eiter T., Gottlob G. (1997) ‘Default logic as a query language’. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 9: 448–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Delgrande J.P., Schaub T., Jackson W.K. (1994) ‘Alternative approaches to default logic’. Artificial Intelligence 70: 167–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Froidevaux, C., P. Chatalic, and J. Mengin, ‘Graded default logics’, European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQAU’91), 1991, pp. 70–75.

  8. Gärdenfors, P., Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988.

  9. Gelfond, M., V. Lifschitz, H. Przymusi´nski, ‘Disjuncnska, and M. Truszczy´tive defaults’, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1991, pp. 230–237

  10. Giordano L., Martelli A. (1994) ‘On cumulative default logics’. Artificial Intelligence 66: 161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Inoue K., Sakama C. (1998) ‘Negation as failure in the head’. JLP 35: 39–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Konolige K. (1988) ‘On the relationship between default and autoepistemic logic’. Artificial Intelligence 35: 343–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lang, J., and P. Marquis, ‘In search of the right extension’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), 2000, pp. 625–636.

  14. Liberatore P. (2004) ‘Uncontroversial default logic’. Journal of Logic and Computation 14: 747–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liberatore, P., and M. Schaerf, ‘BReLS: A system for the integration of knowledge bases’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), 2000, pp. 145–152.

  16. Liberatore, P., and M. Schaerf, ‘The complexity of model checking for propositional default logics’, Data and Knowledge Engineering, (2005). To appear.

  17. Lukaszewicz, W., ‘Considerations on default logic: an alternative approach’, Computational Intelligence, 4 (1988), 1, 1–16.

  18. Mikitiuk, A., and M. Truszczyński, ‘Constrained and rational default logics’, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95), 1995, pp. 1509–1517.

  19. Nebel, B., ‘How hard is it to revise a belief base?’, in D. Dubois, and H. Prade, (eds.), Belief Change -Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Vol. 3, Kluwer Academic, 1998.

  20. Radzikowska A. (1996) ‘A three-valued approach to default logic’. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 6: 149–190

    Google Scholar 

  21. Reiter R. (1980) ‘A logic for default reasoning’. Artificial Intelligence 13: 81–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reiter, R., and G. Criscuolo, ‘On interacting defaults’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’81), 1981, pp. 94– 100.

  23. Rychlik, P., ‘Some variations on default logic’, Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’91), 1991, pp. 373–378.

  24. Schaub, T., ‘On constrained default theories’, Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’92), 1992, pp. 304–308.

  25. Wheeler, G., ‘A resource bounded default logic’, Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), 2004, pp. 416–422.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Systems Science, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Via Salaria 113, 00198, Rome, Italy

    Paolo Liberatore

Authors
  1. Paolo Liberatore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Liberatore.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liberatore, P. Consistency Defaults. Stud Logica 86, 89–110 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-007-9047-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-007-9047-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation