This paper considers KLM-style preferential non-monotonic reasoning in the setting of propositional team semantics. We show that team-based propositional logics naturally give rise to cumulative non-monotonic entailment relations. Motivated by the non-classical interpretation of disjunction in team semantics, we give a precise characterization for preferential models for propositional dependence logic satisfying all of System P postulates. Furthermore, we show how classical entailment and dependence logic entailment can be expressed in terms of non-trivial preferential models.

A wide variety of nonmonotonic semantics can be expressed as approximators defined under AFT (Approximation Fixpoint Theory). Using traditional AFT theory, it is not possible to define approximators that rely on information computed in previous iterations of stable revision. However, this information is rich for semantics that incorporate classical negation into nonmonotonic reasoning. In this work, we introduce a methodology resembling AFT that can utilize priorly computed upper bounds to more precisely capture semantics. We demonstrate our framework's applicability to hybrid MKNF (minimal knowledge and negation as failure) knowledge bases by extending the state-of-the-art approximator.

We propose a novel approach to logic-based learning which generates assumption-based argumentation (ABA) frameworks from positive and negative examples, using a given background knowledge. These ABA frameworks can be mapped onto logic programs with negation as failure that may be non-stratified. Whereas existing argumentation-based methods learn exceptions to general rules by interpreting the exceptions as rebuttal attacks, our approach interprets them as undercutting attacks. Our learning technique is based on the use of transformation rules, including some adapted from logic program transformation rules (notably folding) as well as others, such as rote learning and assumption introduction. We present a general strategy that applies the transformation rules in a suitable order to learn stratified frameworks, and we also propose a variant that handles the non-stratified case. We illustrate the benefits of our approach with a number of examples, which show that, on one hand, we are able to easily reconstruct other logic-based learning approaches and, on the other hand, we can work out in a very simple and natural way problems that seem to be hard for existing techniques.

In this paper we recall some results for conditional events, compound conditionals, conditional random quantities, p-consistency, and p-entailment. Then, we show the equivalence between bets on conditionals and conditional bets, by reviewing de Finetti's trivalent analysis of conditionals. But our approach goes beyond de Finetti's early trivalent logical analysis and is based on his later ideas, aiming to take his proposals to a higher level. We examine two recent articles that explore trivalent logics for conditionals and their definitions of logical validity and compare them with our approach to compound conditionals. We prove a Probabilistic Deduction Theorem for conditional events. After that, we study some probabilistic deduction theorems, by presenting several examples. We focus on iterated conditionals and the invalidity of the Import-Export principle in the light of our Probabilistic Deduction Theorem. We use the inference from a disjunction, "$A$ or $B$", to the conditional,"if not-$A$ then $B$", as an example to show the invalidity of the Import-Export principle. We also introduce a General Import-Export principle and we illustrate it by examining some p-valid inference rules of System P. Finally, we briefly discuss some related work relevant to AI.

We are witnessing an explosion of available data from the Web, government authorities, scientific databases, sensors and more. Such datasets could benefit from the introduction of rule sets encoding commonly accepted rules or facts, application- or domain-specific rules, commonsense knowledge etc. This raises the question of whether, how, and to what extent knowledge representation methods are capable of handling the vast amounts of data for these applications. In this paper, we consider nonmonotonic reasoning, which has traditionally focused on rich knowledge structures. In particular, we consider defeasible logic, and analyze how parallelization, using the MapReduce framework, can be used to reason with defeasible rules over huge data sets. Our experimental results demonstrate that defeasible reasoning with billions of data is performant, and has the potential to scale to trillions of facts.

Only-knowing was originally introduced by Levesque to capture the beliefs of an agent in the sense that its knowledge base is all the agent knows. When a knowledge base contains defaults Levesque also showed an exact correspondence between only-knowing and autoepistemic logic. Later these results were extended by Lakemeyer and Levesque to also capture a variant of autoepistemic logic proposed by Konolige and Reiter's default logic. One of the benefits of such an approach is that various nonmonotonic formalisms can be compared within a single monotonic logic leading, among other things, to the first axiom system for default logic. In this paper, we will bring another large class of nonmonotonic systems, which were first studied by McDermott and Doyle, into the only-knowing fold. Among other things, we will provide the first possible-world semantics for such systems, providing a new perspective on the nature of modal approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning.

The principle of maximum entropy (MaxEnt) constitutes a powerful formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning based on probabilistic conditionals. Conditionals are defeasible rules which allow one to express that certain subclasses of some broader concept behave exceptional. In the (common) probabilistic semantics of conditional statements, these exceptions are formalized only implicitly: The conditional (B A)[p] expresses that if A holds, then B is typically true, namely with probability p, but without explicitly talking about the subclass of A for which B does not hold. There is no possibility to express within the conditional that a subclass C of A is excluded from the inference to B because one is unaware of the probability of B given C. In this paper, we apply the concept of default negation to probabilistic MaxEnt reasoning in order to formalize this kind of unawareness and propose a context-based inference formalism. We exemplify the usefulness of this inference relation, and show that it satisfies basic formal properties of probabilistic reasoning.

The exact relationship between formal argumentation and nonmonotonic logics is a research topic that keeps on eluding researchers despite recent intensified efforts. We contribute to a deeper understanding of this relation by investigating characterizations of abstract dialectical frameworks in conditional logics for nonmonotonic reasoning. We first show that in general, there is a gap between argumentation and conditional semantics when applying several intuitive translations, but then prove that this gap can be closed when focusing on specific classes of translations.

The rich expressivity provided by the cognitive event calculus (CEC) knowledge representation framework allows for reasoning over deeply nested beliefs, desires, intentions, and so on. I put CEC to the test by attempting to model the complex reasoning and deceptive planning used in an episode of the popular television show Breaking Bad. CEC is used to represent the knowledge used by reasoners coming up with plans like the ones devised by the fictional characters I describe. However, it becomes clear that a form of nonmonotonic reasoning is necessary--specifically so that an agent can reason about the nonmonotonic beliefs of another agent. I show how CEC can be augmented to have this ability, and then provide examples detailing how my proposed augmentation enables much of the reasoning used by agents such as the Breaking Bad characters. I close by discussing what sort of reasoning tool would be necessary to implement such nonmonotonic reasoning.

Answer set programming (ASP) is an efficient problem-solving approach, which has been strongly supported both scientifically and technologically by several solvers, ongoing active research, and implementations in many different fields. However, although researchers acknowledged long ago the necessity of epistemic operators in the language of ASP for better introspective reasoning, this research venue did not attract much attention until recently. Moreover, the existing epistemic extensions of ASP in the literature are not widely approved either, due to the fact that some propose unintended results even for some simple acyclic epistemic programs, new unexpected results may possibly be found, and more importantly, researchers have different reasonings for some critical programs. To that end, Cabalar et al. have recently identified some structural properties of epistemic programs to formally support a possible semantics proposal of such programs and standardise their results. Nonetheless, the soundness of these properties is still under debate, and they are not widely accepted either by the ASP community. Thus, it seems that there is still time to really understand the paradigm, have a mature formalism, and determine the principles providing formal justification of their understandable models. In this paper, we mainly focus on the existing semantics approaches, the criteria that a satisfactory semantics is supposed to satisfy, and the ways to improve them. We also extend some well-known propositions of here-and-there logic (HT) into epistemic HT so as to reveal the real behaviour of programs. Finally, we propose a slightly novel semantics for epistemic ASP, which can be considered as a reflexive extension of Cabalar et al.'s recent formalism called autoepistemic ASP.