Explanations, belief revision and defeasible reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
We present different constructions for non-prioritized belief revision, that is, belief changes in which the input sentences are not always accepted. First, we present the concept of explanation in a deductive way. Second, we define multiple revision operators with respect to sets of sentences (representing explanations), giving representation theorems. Finally, we relate the formulated operators with argumentative systems and default reasoning frameworks.
منابع مشابه
Embedding Defeasible Argumentation in the Semantic Web: an ontology-based approach
The SemanticWeb is a project intended to create a universal medium for information exchange by giving semantics to the content of documents on the Web by means of ontology definitions. Ontologies intended for knowledge representation in intelligent agents rely on common-sense reasoning formalizations. Defeasible argumentation has emerged as a successful approach to model common-sense reasoning....
متن کاملRevising Nonmonotonic Belief Sets: The Case of Defeasible Logic
The revision and transformation of knowledge is widely recognized as a key issue in knowledge representation and reasoning. Reasons for the importance of this topic are the fact that intelligent systems are gradually developed and refined, and that often the environment of an intelligent system is not static but changes over time. Traditionally belief revision has been concerned with revising f...
متن کاملRevising Nonmonotonic Theories: The Case of Defeasible Logic
The revision and transformation of knowledge is widely recognized as a key issue in knowledge representation and reasoning. Reasons for the importance of this topic are the fact that intelligent systems are gradually developed and refined, and that often the environment of an intelligent system is not static but changes over time. Traditionally belief revision has been concerned with revising f...
متن کاملOntology Merging Using Belief Revision and Defeasible Logic Programming
We combine argumentation, belief revision and description logic ontologies for extending the δ-ontologies framework to show how to merge two ontologies in which the union of the strict terminologies could lead to inconsistency. To solve this problem, we revisit a procedure presented by Falappa et al. in which part of the offending terminologies are turned defeasible by using a kernel revision o...
متن کاملChanging Legal Systems: Abrogation and Annulment Part I: Revision of Defeasible Theories
In this paper we investigate how to model legal abrogation and annulment in Defeasible Logic. We examine some options that embed in this setting, and similar rule-based systems, ideas from belief and base revision. In both cases, our conclusion is negative, which suggests to adopt a different logical model.
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Artif. Intell.
دوره 141 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2002