Reasoning can lead not only to the adoption of beliefs, but also to the retraction of beliefs. In philosophy, this is described by saying that reasoning is defeasible. My ultimate objective is the construction of a general theory of reasoning and its implementation in an automated reasoner capable of both deductive and defeasible reasoning. The resulting system is named “OSCAR. ” This article addresses some of the theoretical underpinnings of OSCAR. This article extends my earlier theory in two directions. First, it addresses the question of what the criteria of adequacy should be for a defeasible reasoner. Second, it extends the theory to accommodate reasons of varying strengths.

This paper investigates the appropriateness of formal dialectics as a basis for non-monotonic reasoning and defeasible reasoning that takes computational limits seriously. Rules that can come into conflict should be regarded as policies, which are inputs to deliberative processes. Dialectical protocols are appropriate for such deliberations when resources are bounded and search is serial. AI, it is claimed here, is now perfectly positioned to correct many misconceptions about reasoning that have resulted from mathematical logic's enormous success in this century: among them, (1) that all reasons are demonstrative, (2) that rational belief is constrained, not constructed, (3) that process and disputation are not essential to reasoning. AI mainly provides new impetus to formalize the alternative (but older) conception of reasoning, and AI provides mechanisms with which to create compelling formalism that describes the control of processes. The technical contributions here are: the partial justification of dialectic based on controlling search; the observation that non-monotonic reasoning can be subsumed under certain kinds of dialectics; the portrayal of inference in knowledge bases as policy reasoning; the review of logics of dialogue and proposed extensions; and the pre-formal and initial formal discussion of aspects and variations of dialectical systems with non-demonstrative reasons. 1. ARGUMENTS AND DEMONSTRATION

We describe a new approach to default reasoning, based on a principle of indifference among possible worlds. We interpret default rules as extreme statistical statements, thus obtaining a knowledge base KB comprised of statistical and first-order statements. We then assign equal probability to all worlds consistent with KB in order to assign a degree of belief to a statement '. The degree of belief can be used to decide whether to defeasibly conclude '. Various natural patterns of reasoning, such as a preference for more specific defaults, indifference to irrelevant information, and the ability to combine independent pieces of evidence, turn out to follow naturally from this technique. Furthermore, our approach is not restricted to default reasoning; it supports a spectrum of reasoning, from quantitative to qualitative. It is also related to other systems for default reasoning. In particular, we show that the work of [ Goldszmidt et al., 1990 ] , which applies maximum entropy ideas t...

An intelligent agent uses known facts, including statistical knowledge, to assign degrees of belief to assertions it is uncertain about. We investigate three principled techniques for doing this. All three are applications of the principle of indifference, because they assign equal degree of belief to all basic "situations " consistent with the knowledge base. They differ because there are competing intuitions about what the basic situations are. Various natural patterns of reasoning, such as the preference for the most specific statistical data available, turn out to follow from some or all of the techniques. This is an improvement over earlier theories, such as work on direct inference and reference classes, which arbitrarily postulate these patterns without offering any deeper explanations or guarantees of consistency. The three methods we investigate have surprising characterizations: there are connections to the principle of maximum entropy, a principle of maximal independence, an...

We present an approach to reasoning from statistical and subjective knowledge, which is based on a combination of probabilistic reasoning from conditional constraints with approaches to default reasoning from conditional knowledge bases. More precisely, we introduce the notions of -, lexicographic, and conditional entailment for conditional constraints, which are probabilistic generalizations of Pearl's entailment in system , Lehmann's lexicographic entailment, and Geffner's conditional entailment, respectively. We show that the new formalisms have nice properties. In particular, they show a similar behavior as referenceclass reasoning in a number of uncontroversial examples. The new formalisms, however, also avoid many drawbacks of reference-class reasoning. More precisely, they can handle complex scenarios and even purely probabilistic subjective knowledge as input. Moreover, conclusions are drawn in a global way from all the available knowledge as a whole. We then show that the new formalisms also have nice general nonmonotonic properties. In detail, the new notions of -, lexicographic, and conditional entailment have similar properties as their classical counterparts. In particular, they all satisfy the rationality postulates proposed by Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor, and they have some general irrelevance and direct inference properties. Moreover, the new notions of - and lexicographic entailment satisfy the property of rational monotonicity. Furthermore, the new notions of -, lexicographic, and conditional entailment are proper generalizations of both their classical counterparts and the classical notion of logical entailment for conditional constraints. Finally, we provide algorithms for reasoning under the new formalisms, and we analyze its computational com...

Ontologies play a crucial role in the development of the Semantic Web as a means for defining shared terms in web resources. They are formulated in web ontology languages, which are based on expressive description logics. Significant research efforts in the semantic web community are recently directed towards representing and reasoning with uncertainty and vagueness in ontologies for the Semantic Web. In this paper, we give an overview of approaches in this context to managing probabilistic uncertainty, possibilistic uncertainty, and vagueness in expressive description logics for the Semantic Web.

We present probabilistic logic programming under inheritance with overriding. This approach is based on new notions of entailment for reasoning with conditional constraints, which are obtained from the classical notion of logical entailment by adding inheritance with overriding. This is done by using recent approaches to probabilistic default reasoning with conditional constraints. We analyze the semantic properties of the new entailment relations. We also present algorithms for probabilistic logic programming under inheritance with overriding, and we analyze its complexity in the propositional case. 1

We present a mechanism for constructing graphical models, specifically Bayesian networks, from a knowledge base of general probabilistic information. The unique feature of our approach is that it uses a powerful first-order probabilistic logic for expressing the general knowledge base. This logic allows for the representation of a wide range of logical and probabilistic information. The model construction procedure we propose uses notions from direct inference to identify pieces of local statistical information from the knowledge base that are most appropriate to the particular event we want to reason about. These pieces are composed to generate a joint probability distribution specified as a Bayesian network. Although there are fundamental difficulties in dealing with fully general knowledge, our procedure is practical for quite rich knowledge bases and it supports the construction of a far wider range of networks than allowed for by current template technology. 1 Introduction The de...

Abstract. An argument is self-defeating when it contains defeaters for some of its own defeasible lines. It is shown that the obvious rules for defeat among arguments do not handle self-defeating arguments correctly. It turns out that they constitute a pervasive phenomenon that threatens to cripple defeasible reasoning, leading to almost all defeasible reasoning being defeated by unexpected interactions with self-defeating arguments. This leads to some important changes in the general theory of defeasible reasoning. Key words. Argument, defeasible, nonmonotonic. 1.

This paper is on the combination of two powerful approaches to uncertain reasoning: logic programming in a probabilistic setting, on the one hand, and the information-theoretical principle of maximum entropy, on the other hand. More precisely, we present two approaches to probabilistic logic programming under maximum entropy. The first one is based on the usual notion of entailment under maximum entropy, and is defined for the very general case of probabilistic logic programs over Boolean events. The second one is based on a new notion of entailment under maximum entropy, where the principle of maximum entropy is coupled with the closed world assumption (CWA) from classical logic programming. It is only defined for the more restricted case of probabilistic logic programs over conjunctive events. We then analyze the nonmonotonic behavior of both approaches along benchmark examples and along general properties for default reasoning from conditional knowledge bases. It turns out that both approaches have very nice nonmonotonic features. In particular, they realize some inheritance of probabilistic knowledge along subclass relationships, without suffering from the problem of inheritance blocking and from the drowning problem. They both also satisfy the property of rational monotonicity and several irrelevance properties. We finally present algorithms for both approaches, which are based on generalizations of techniques from probabilistic