The paper describes a preferential approach for dealing with exceptions in KLM preferential logics, based on the rational closure. It is well known that the rational closure does not allow an independent handling of the inheritance of different defeasible properties of concepts. Several solutions have been proposed to face this problem and the lexicographic closure is the most notable one. In this work, we consider an alternative closure construction, called the Multi Preference closure (MP-closure), that has been first considered for reasoning with exceptions in DLs. Here, we reconstruct the notion of MP-closure in the propositional case and we show that it is a natural variant of Lehmann's lexicographic closure. Abandoning Maximal Entropy (an alternative route already considered but not explored by Lehmann) leads to a construction which exploits a different lexicographic ordering w.r.t. the lexicographic closure, and determines a preferential consequence relation rather than a rational consequence relation. We show that, building on the MP-closure semantics, rationality can be recovered, at least from the semantic point of view, resulting in a rational consequence relation which is stronger than the rational closure, but incomparable with the lexicographic closure. We also show that the MP-closure is stronger than the Relevant Closure.
Defeasible inheritance networks are a non-monotonic framework that deals with hierarchical knowledge. On the other hand, rational closure is acknowledged as a landmark of the preferential approach to non-monotonic reasoning. We will combine these two approaches and define a new non-monotonic closure operation for propositional knowledge bases that combines the advantages of both. Then we redefine such a procedure for Description Logics (DLs), a family of logics well-suited to model structured information. In both cases we will provide a simple reasoning method that is built on top of the classical entailment relation and, thus, is amenable of an implementation based on existing reasoners. Eventually, we evaluate our approach on well-known landmark test examples.
We continue recent investigations into the problem of reasoning about typicality. We do so in the framework of Propositional Typicality Logic (PTL), which is obtained by enriching classical propositional logic with a typicality operator and characterized by a preferential semantics à la KLM. In this paper we study different notions of entailment for PTL. We take as a starting point the notion of Rational Closure defined for KLM-style conditionals. We show that the additional expressivity of PTL results in different versions of Rational Closure for PTL — versions that are equivalent with respect to the conditional language originally proposed by KLM.
This paper is concerned about a formal relationship between nonmonotonic reasoning and probability theory. Nonmonotonic reasoning is a formalization of reasoning when information is incomplete. If someone is forced to make a decision under incomplete information, he uses corm-nonsense to supplement lack of information. Commonsense can be regarded as a collection of normal results. Those normal results are obtained because their probability is very near to certainty. So commonsense has a statistical or probabilistic property. Although there are a lot of researches which simulate a behavior of nonmonotonic reasoning based on probability theory(see [Pearl 19891 for example), there is no formal relationship between nonmonotonic reasoning and probability theory, as Lifschitz (1989) pointed out.
We extend description logics (DLs) with non-monotonic reasoning features. We start by investigating a notion of defeasible subsumption in the spirit of defeasible conditionals as studied by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor in the propositional case. In particular, we consider a natural and intuitive semantics for defeasible subsumption, and investigate KLM-style syntactic properties for both preferential and rational subsumption. Our contribution includes two representation results linking our semantic constructions to the set of preferential and rational properties considered. Besides showing that our semantics is appropriate, these results pave the way for more effective decision procedures for defeasible reasoning in DLs. Indeed, we also analyse the problem of non-monotonic reasoning in DLs at the level of entailment and present an algorithm for the computation of rational closure of a defeasible ontology. Importantly, our algorithm relies completely on classical entailment and shows that the computational complexity of reasoning over defeasible ontologies is no worse than that of reasoning in the underlying classical DL ALC.