Results 1 
6 of
6
The Feasibility of Defeat in Defeasible Reasoning
 In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
, 1991
"... Systems of defeasible reasoning are characterized by defeasible proofs, called arguments. I claim that sensible criteria of defeat among arguments in those systems are feasible, be it to a certain extent. As defeat eventually becomes unenforceable, the only option left is to pursue both arguments co ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Systems of defeasible reasoning are characterized by defeasible proofs, called arguments. I claim that sensible criteria of defeat among arguments in those systems are feasible, be it to a certain extent. As defeat eventually becomes unenforceable, the only option left is to pursue both arguments concurrently. This paper tries to confine the reach of defeat among arguments by means of several case studies, some of which are taken from the literature. 1. INTRODUCTION Reasoning beyond the information enclosed in the premises is a tempting but risky activity. It is tempting, because sheer deductive reasoning brings us no more than what was already recorded in the premises. And it is risky, because we might jump to the wrong conclusions. This is, very briefly, the issue of ampliative inference mechanisms. Ampliative inference can be defined as the result of rational nondeterministic nonmonotonic reasoning (Loui, 1990). The term itself is suggested by the American philosopher Peirce (183...
Artificial Intelligence, Logic And Formalizing Common Sense
 Philosophical Logic and Artificial Intelligence
, 1990
"... This article discusses the problems and difficulties, the results so far, and some improvements in logic and logical languages that may be required to formalize common sense. Fundamental conceptual advances are almost certainly required. The object of the paper is to get more help for AI from philos ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This article discusses the problems and difficulties, the results so far, and some improvements in logic and logical languages that may be required to formalize common sense. Fundamental conceptual advances are almost certainly required. The object of the paper is to get more help for AI from philosophical logicians. Some of the requested help will be mostly philosophical and some will be logical. Likewise the concrete AI approach may fertilize philosophical logic as physics has repeatedly fertilized mathematics.
Tackling the Qualification Problem using Fluent Dependency Constraints: Preliminary Report
 LINKÖPING ELECTRONIC ARTICLES IN COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE VOL. 2(1997): NR 16
, 1997
"... ..."
Practical Knowledge Representation and DARPA's High Performance Knowledge Bases
 Project.” Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Brekcenridge
, 2000
"... We address the experiences of the DARPA High Performance Knowledge Bases (HPKB) (Cohen et al., 1998) project in practical knowledge representation. The purpose of the HPKB project was to develop new techniques for rapid development of knowledge bases. The goal of this paper is to describe several te ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We address the experiences of the DARPA High Performance Knowledge Bases (HPKB) (Cohen et al., 1998) project in practical knowledge representation. The purpose of the HPKB project was to develop new techniques for rapid development of knowledge bases. The goal of this paper is to describe several technical issues that arose in creation of practical KB content.
Representing and Reasoning about Concurrent Actions with Abductive Logic Programs
, 1997
"... In this paper we extend Gelfond and Lifschitz' action description language A with concurrent actions and observation propositions to describe the predicted behaviour of domains of (concurrent) actions and actually observed behaviour, respectively, without requiring that the actually observed behavio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we extend Gelfond and Lifschitz' action description language A with concurrent actions and observation propositions to describe the predicted behaviour of domains of (concurrent) actions and actually observed behaviour, respectively, without requiring that the actually observed behaviour of a domain of actions be consistent with its predicted behaviour. We present a translation from domain descriptions and observations in the new action language to abductive normal logic programs. The translation is shown to be both sound and complete. From the standpoint of modelbased diagnosis, in particular, we discuss the temporal explanation of inferring actions from fluent changes at two different levels, namely, at the domain description level and at the abductive logic programming level. The method is applicable to the temporal projection problem with incomplete information, as well as to the temporal explanation of inferring actions from fluent changes. 1 Introduction There ha...
Discrete Event Calculus Deduction using FirstOrder Automated Theorem Proving
"... Abstract. The event calculus is a powerful and highly usable formalism for reasoning about action and change. The discrete event calculus limits time to integers. This paper shows how discrete event calculus problems can be encoded in firstorder logic, and solved using a firstorder logic automated ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The event calculus is a powerful and highly usable formalism for reasoning about action and change. The discrete event calculus limits time to integers. This paper shows how discrete event calculus problems can be encoded in firstorder logic, and solved using a firstorder logic automated theorem proving system. The following techniques are discussed: reification is used to convert event and fluent atoms into firstorder terms, uniquenessofnames axioms are generated to ensure uniqueness of event and fluent terms, predicate completion is used to convert secondorder circumscriptions into firstorder formulae, and a limited firstorder axiomatization of integer arithmetic is developed. The performance of firstorder automated theorem proving is compared to that of satisfiability solving. 1