Defeasible Logic is Stable

Billington, David P.

doi:10.1093/logcom/3.4.379

Cited by 81 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9 Derivability for knowledge (±∆ K , ±∂ K ) has the same conditions as those given for derivability in Section 5. It is true that the complete and accurate definition of the inference conditions is cumbersome but the intuition is natural and easy to understand.…”

Section: The Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Defeasible logic, as developed by Nute [51,50] with a particular concern about computational efficiency and developed over the years by [9,5,4] is our choice. The reason being ease of implementation [46], flexibility [4] (it has a constructively defined and easy to use proof theory), modularity [5] and it is efficient: it is possible to compute the complete set of consequences of a given theory in linear time [44].…”

Section: Overview Of Defeasible Logicmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A defeasible logic for modelling policy-based intentions and motivational attitudes

Governatori

Padmanabhan

Rotolo

et al. 2009

Logic Journal of IGPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we show how defeasible logic could formally account for the non-monotonic properties involved in motivational attitudes like intention and obligation. Usually, normal modal operators are used to represent such attitudes wherein classical logical consequence and the rule of necessitation comes into play, i.e., A/ 2A, that is from A derive 2A. This means that such formalisms are affected by the Logical Omniscience problem. We show that policy-based intentions exhibit nonmonotonic behaviour which could be captured through a non-monotonic system like defeasible logic. To this end we outline a defeasible logic of intention that specifies how modalities can be introduced and manipulated in a non-monotonic setting without giving rise to the problem of logical omniscience. In a similar way we show how to add deontic modalities defeasibly and how to integrate them with other motivational attitudes like beliefs and goals. Finally we show that the basic aspect of the BOID architecture is captured by this extended framework.

show abstract

Section: The Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of Defeasible Logicmentioning

confidence: 99%

A defeasible logic for modelling policy-based intentions and motivational attitudes

Governatori

Padmanabhan

Rotolo

et al. 2009

Logic Journal of IGPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we hope to give enough information to make the discussion intelligible. We refer the reader to [24,10,4] for more thorough treatments. As usual with non-monotonic reasoning, we have to specify 1) how to represent a knowledge base and 2) the inference mechanism.…”

Section: Defeasible Logicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this reason an attempt has been made, by using a language which has proven successful in the field of ontologies and combining its principles with properties of a more flexible logic, to solve in part the motivating problem driving this work. The proposed method for solving this is to integrate two established forms of logic, Description logic [8] and Defeasible logic [4,10,24]. Description logics though imparting strong and conclusive reasoning mechanisms, lack the flexibility of Defeasible logics non-monotonic reasoning mechanisms, which add flexibility to knowledge bases that have partial knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defeasible Description Logics

Governatori

2004

Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A defeasible logic was first published by Nute [9]. Since then, some systems of the same kind of defeasible logics have been developed [1,2,10]. We introduce Billington's defeasible logic in [2], The defeasible logic has facts and three kinds of rules, a strict rule (A → q), a defeasible rule (A ⇒ q) and a defeater (A q), and a superiority relation > between those rules to carry out defeasible reasoning.…”

Section: R2mentioning

confidence: 99%