The importance of transformations and normal forms in logic programming, and generally in computer science, is well documented. This paper investigates transformations and normal forms in the context of Defeasible Logic, a simple but efficient formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning based on rules and priorities. The transformations described in this paper have two main benefits: on one hand they can be used as a theoretical tool that leads to a deeper understanding of the formalism, and on the other hand they have been used in the development of an efficient implementation of defeasible logic.

Defeasible reasoning is a simple but efficient rule-based approach to nonmonotonic reasoning. It has powerful implementations and shows promise to be applied in the areas of legal reasoning and the modeling of business rules. This paper establishes significant links between defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Dung-like argumentation semantics is provided for two key defeasible logics, of which one is ambiguity propagating and the other ambiguity blocking.There are several reasons for the significance of this work: (a) establishing links between formal systems leads to a better understanding and cross-fertilization, in particular our work sheds light on the argumentation-theoretic features of defeasible logic; (b) we provide the first ambiguity blocking Dunglike argumentation system; (c) defeasible reasoning may provide an efficient implementation platform for systems of argumentation; and (d) argumentation-based semantics support a deeper understanding of defeasible reasoning, especially in the context of the intended applications.

No abstract

No abstract

Defeasible reasoning is a computationally simple nonmonotonic reasoning approach that has attracted significant theoretical and practical attention. It comprises a family of logics that capture different intuitions, among them ambiguity propagation versus ambiguity blocking, and the adoption or rejection of team defeat. This article provides a compact presentation of the defeasible logic variants, and derives an inclusion theorem which shows that different notions of provability in defeasible logic form a chain of levels of proof.

Frustrated interactions exist throughout nature, with examples ranging from protein folding through to frustrated magnetic interactions. Whilst magnetic frustration is observed in numerous electrically insulating systems, in metals it is a rare phenomenon. The interplay of itinerant conduction electrons mediating interactions between localised magnetic moments with strong spin-orbit coupling is likely fundamental to these systems. Therefore, knowledge of the precise shape and topology of the Fermi surface is important in any explanation of the magnetic behaviour. PdCrO2, a frustrated metallic magnet, offers the opportunity to examine the relationship between magnetic frustration, short-range magnetic order and Fermi surface topology. By mapping the short-range order in reciprocal space and experimentally determining the electronic structure, we have identified the dual role played by the Cr electrons in which the itinerant ones on the nested paramagnetic Fermi surface mediate the frustrated magnetic interactions between local moments.

Defeasible logic is a simple but efficient rule-based non-monotonic logic. It has powerful implementations and shows promise to be applied in the areas of legal reasoning and the modelling of business rules. So far defeasible logic has been defined only proof-theoretically. Argumentation-based semantics have become popular in the area of logic programming. In this paper we give an argumentation-based semantics for defeasible logic. Recently it has been shown that a family of approaches can be built around defeasible logic, in which different intuitions can be followed. In this paper we present an argumentation-based semantics for an ambiguity propagating logic, too. Further defeasible logics can be characterised in a similar way.

No abstract