Abstract

We present a general framework for defining nonmonotonic systems based on the notion of preferred maximal consistent subsets of the premises. This framework subsumes David Poole's THEORIST approach to default reasoning as a particular instance. A disadvantage of THEORIST is that it does not allow to represent priorities between defaults adequately (as distinct from blocking defaults in specific situations). We therefore propose two generalizations of Poole's system: in the first generalization several layers of possible hypotheses representing different degrees of reliability are introduced. In a second further generalization a partial ordering between premises is used to distinguish between more and less reliable formulas. In both approaches a formula is provable from a theory if it is possible to construct a consistent argument for it based on the most reliable hypotheses. This allows for a simple representation of priorities between defaults. 1

Citations

1247	A logic for default reasoning - Reiter - 1980
436	Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Commonsense Knowledge - McCarthy - 1986
407	Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic - Moore - 1985
348	A logical framework for default reasoning - Poole� - 1988
214	Reasoning about Change. Time and causation from the standpoint of artificial intelligence - Shoham - 1988
148	Revisions of Knowledge Systems Using Epistemic Entrenchment - Gardenfors, Makinson - 1988
119	R.: Theorist: A Logical Reasoning System for Defaults and Diagnosis, The Knowledge Frontier - Poole, Aleliunas, et al. - 1987
5	Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Theoretical Foundations to Efficient Computation - Brewka - 1989
4	Methods of automated reasoning - Bibel - 1986
1	The Logic of Inheritance - Brewka - 1987
1	Hierarchic Autoepistcmic Theories for Nonmonotonic - Konolige