The quality criteria of system P have been guiding qualitative uncertain reasoning now for more than two decades. Different semantical approaches have been presented to provide semantics for system P. The aim of the present paper is to investigate the semantical structures underlying system P in more detail, namely, on the level of the models. In particular, we focus on the approach via conditional objects which relies on Boolean intervals, without making any use of qualitative or quantitative information. Indeed, our studies confirm the singular position of conditional objects, but we are also able to establish semantical relationships via novel variants of model theories.

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.

Possibilistic logic is a well-known logic for reasoning under uncertainty, which is based on the idea that the epistemic state of an agent can be modeled by assigning to each possible world a degree of possibility, taken from a totally ordered, but essentially qualitative scale. Recently, a generalization has been proposed that extends possibilistic logic to a meta-epistemic logic, endowing it with the capability of reasoning about epistemic states, rather than merely constraining them. In this paper, we further develop this generalized possibilistic logic (GPL). We introduce an axiomatization showing that GPL is a fragment of a graded version of the modal logic KD, and we prove soundness and completeness w.r.t. a semantics in terms of possibility distributions. Next, we reveal a close link between the well-known stable model semantics for logic programming and the notion of minimally specific models in GPL. More generally, we analyze the relationship between the equilibrium logic of Pearce and GPL, showing that GPL can essentially be seen as a generalization of equilibrium logic, although its notion of minimal specificity is slightly more demanding than the notion of minimality underlying equilibrium logic.

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.

This article is devoted to the study of methods to change defeasible logic programs (de.l.p.s) which are the knowledge bases used by the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) interpreter. DeLP is an argumentation formalism that allows to reason over potentially inconsistent de.l.p.s. Argument Theory Change (ATC) studies certain aspects of belief revision in order to make them suitable for abstract argumentation systems. In this article, abstract arguments are rendered concrete by using the particular rule-based defeasible logic adopted by DeLP. The objective of our proposal is to define prioritized argument revision operators \`a la ATC for de.l.p.s, in such a way that the newly inserted argument ends up undefeated after the revision, thus warranting its conclusion. In order to ensure this warrant, the de.l.p. has to be changed in concordance with a minimal change principle. To this end, we discuss different minimal change criteria that could be adopted. Finally, an algorithm is presented, implementing the argument revision operations.

Logic programs with aggregates (LPA) are one of the major linguistic extensions to Logic Programming (LP). In this work, we propose a generalization of the notions of unfounded set and well-founded semantics for programs with monotone and antimonotone aggregates (LPAma programs). In particular, we present a new notion of unfounded set for LPAma programs, which is a sound generalization of the original definition for standard (aggregate-free) LP. On this basis, we define a well-founded operator for LPAma programs, the fixpoint of which is called well-founded model (or well-founded semantics) for LPAma programs. The most important properties of unfounded sets and the well-founded semantics for standard LP are retained by this generalization, notably existence and uniqueness of the well-founded model, together with a strong relationship to the answer set semantics for LPAma programs. We show that one of the D-well-founded semantics, defined by Pelov, Denecker, and Bruynooghe for a broader class of aggregates using approximating operators, coincides with the well-founded model as defined in this work on LPAma programs. We also discuss some complexity issues, most importantly we give a formal proof of tractable computation of the well-founded model for LPA programs. Moreover, we prove that for general LPA programs, which may contain aggregates that are neither monotone nor antimonotone, deciding satisfaction of aggregate expressions with respect to partial interpretations is coNP-complete. As a consequence, a well-founded semantics for general LPA programs that allows for tractable computation is unlikely to exist, which justifies the restriction on LPAma programs. Finally, we present a prototype system extending DLV, which supports the well-founded semantics for LPAma programs, at the time of writing the only implemented system that does so. Experiments with this prototype show significant computational advantages of aggregate constructs over equivalent aggregate-free encodings.

Translations between different nonmonotonic formalisms always have been an important topic in the field, in particular to understand the knowledge-representation capabilities those formalisms offer. We provide such an investigation in terms of different semantics proposed for abstract argumentation frameworks, a nonmonotonic yet simple formalism which received increasing interest within the last decade. Although the properties of these different semantics are nowadays well understood, there are no explicit results about intertranslatability. We provide such translations wrt.

As a doxastic counterpart to epistemic logic based on S5 we study the modal logic KSD that can be viewed as an approach to modelling a kind of objective and fair belief. We apply KSD to the problem of minimal belief and develop an alterna- tive approach to nonmonotonic modal logic using a weaker concept of expansion. This corresponds to a certain minimal kind of KSD model and yields a new type of nonmonotonic doxastic reasonin

Multi-context systems (MCS) are a powerful framework for interlinking heterogeneous knowledge sources. They model the flow of information among different reasoning components (called contexts) in a declarative way, using so-called bridge rules, where contexts and bridge rules may be nonmonotonic. We considerably generalize MCS to managed MCS (mMCS): while the original bridge rules can only add information to contexts, our generalization allows arbitrary operations on context knowledge bases to be freely defined, e.g., deletion or revision operators. The paper motivates and introduces the generalized framework and presents several interesting instances. Furthermore, we consider inconsistency management in mMCS and complexity issues.

Information about user preferences plays a key role in automated decision making. In many domains it is desirable to assess such preferences in a qualitative rather than quantitative way. In this paper, we propose a qualitative graphical representation of preferences that reflects conditional dependence and independence of preference statements under a ceteris paribus (all else being equal) interpretation. Such a representation is often compact and arguably quite natural in many circumstances. We provide a formal semantics for this model, and describe how the structure of the network can be exploited in several inference tasks, such as determining whether one outcome dominates (is preferred to) another, ordering a set outcomes according to the preference relation, and constructing the best outcome subject to available evidence.