Default non-monotonic logic | The Knowledge Engineering Review | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

This paper is a review of certain non-monotonic logics, which I call default non-monotonic logics. These are logics which exploit failure to prove. How each logic uses this basic idea is explained, and examples given. The emphasis is on leading ideas explained through examples: technical detail is avoided. Four non-monotonic logics are discussed: Reiter's default logic, McCarthy's circumscription, McDermott's modal non-monotonic logic, and Clarks's completed database. The first two are treated in some detail. The recent Hanks-McDermott criticism of non-monotonic logic is discussed, and some conclusions drawn about the prospects for non-monotonic logic. Recommendations for further reading are given.

References

Barendregt, H 1981. Lambda Calculus, North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Barwise, J and Etchmendy, J, 1987. Truth and the Liar, Oxford.Google Scholar

Barwise, J and Perry, J, 1983. Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bossu, G and Siegal, P, 1985. “Saturation, non-monotonic reasoning and the closed world assumption”, Artificial Intelligence (25) 13–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boolos, G and Jeffrey, R, 1982. Computability & Logic, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Blair, H A, 1982. “The recursion-theorectic complexity of the semantics of predicate logic as a programming language,” Information and Control (54) 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bridge, J, 1977. Beginning model theory, Oxford Logic Guides, Oxford.Google Scholar

Bundy, A, 1983. The Computer Modelling of Mathematical Reasoning, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar

Chang, C C and Keisler, H J, 1976. Model Theory, North-Holland.Google Scholar

Cohen, P, 1987. “The control of reasoning under uncertainty: a discussion of some programs,” The Knowledge Engineering Review (2) 6–25.Google Scholar

Davis, M, 1980. “The mathematics of non-monotonic reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence (13) 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Etherington, D, Mercer, R and Reiter, R, 1985. “On the adequacy of predicate circumscription for closed world reasoning,” Computational Intelligence (1) (1985) 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitting, M, 1985. “A Kripke-Kleene semantics for logic programs,” Journal of Logic Programming (4) 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitting, M, 1986. “Notes on the mathematical aspects of Kripke's theory of truth,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (27) 75–88.Google Scholar

Flannagan, T, 1986. “The consistency of negation as failure,” Journal of Logic Programming (3) 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gabbay, D, 1982. “Intuitionistic bases for non-monotonic logic,” In: Proc. Conference on Automated Deduction Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science (6) 260–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gallaire, H and Minker, J, (Ed.), 1978. Logic and Databases, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar

Hanks, S and McDermott, D, 1987. “Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection,” Artificial Intelligence (33) 379–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hughes, G E and Cresswell, M, 1968. An Introduction to Modal Logic, Methuen, London.Google Scholar

Jaffar, J, Lassez, J-L and Lloyd, J W, 1983. “Completeness of the negation as failure rule,” Proceedings of the 8th IJCAI, Karlsruhe, 500–506.Google Scholar

Konolige, K, 1988. “On the relation between default and autoepistemic logic,” Artificial Intelligence (35) 343–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kunen, K, 1987. “Negation in logic programming,” Journal of Logic Programming (4) 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kyburg, H, 1970. Probability and Inductive Logic, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar

Lifschitz, V, 1985a. “Closed world data bases and circumscription,” Artificial Intelligence (27) 229–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lifschitz, V, 1985b. “Pointwise circumscription: preliminary report,” Proc. IJCAI-85, Los Angeles, Ca., 406–10.Google Scholar

Lifschitz, V, 1986. “On the satisfiability of circumscription,” Artificial Intelligence (28) 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, J, 1980. “Circumscription—a form of non-monotonic reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence (13) 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, J, 1986. “Applications of circumscription to formalising common-sense knowledge,” Artificial Intelligence (28) 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDermott, D V and Doyle, J, 1980. “Non-monotonic logic I,” Artificial Intelligence (13) 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDermot, D V, 1983. “Non-monotonic logic II,” JACM (29) 33–57.Google Scholar

McDermott, D V, 1982. “A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans,” Cognitive Sci. (6) 101–155.Google Scholar

Mendelson, E, 1987. Introduction to Mathematical Logic (3rd Edition), Wadsworth, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Minsky, M, 1975. “A framework for representing knowledge,” Winston, P (Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar

Moore, R C, 1985. “Semantic considerations on non-monotonic logic,” Artificial Intelligence (25) 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mott, P L, 1987. “A theorem on the consistency of circumscription,” Artificial Intelligence (31) 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nute, D, 1988. “LDR: a logic for defeasible reasoning,” ACMC Research Report 01–0013, University of Georgia.Google Scholar

Perlis, D and Minker, J, 1986. “Completeness results for circumscription,” Artificial Intelligence (28) 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raphael, B, 1971. “The frame problem in problem solving systems,” In: Findler, N V & Meltzer, B (Eds.), AI and Heuristic Programming, Edinburgh U P, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Reiter, R, 1980b. “Equality and domain closure in first order data bases,” JACM (27) 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reiter, R, 1978b. “Deductive question answering on relational databases,” In: Gallaire and Minker, op cit 149–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reiter, R and Crisculo, G. 1983. “Some representational issues in default reasoning,” Int. J. of Computat. Maths (9) 1–13.Google Scholar

Robbin, J W, 1969. Mathematical Logic, Benjamin, New York.Google Scholar

Schlipf, J, 1987a. “Decidability and definability with circumscription,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic (35) 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schlipf, J, 1987b. “When is closed world reasoning tractable?” Department of Computer Science, University of Cincinati, Ohio 45221–0008, USA.Google Scholar

Shepherdson, J, 1984. “Negation as failure: a comparison of Clark's completed database and Reiter's closed world assumption,” Journal of Logic Programming (1) 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shepherdson, J, 1985. “Negation as failure II,” Journal of Logic Programming (2) 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shortliffe, E, 1976. Computer-Based Medical Consultations: MYCIN, Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar

Smets, Ph, Mamdani, E H, Dubois, D and Prade, H, 1988. Non-Standard Logics for Automated Reasoning, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar

Swinburne, R (Ed), 1974. The Justification of Induction, Oxford.Google Scholar

Tarski, A, 1944. “The semantic conception of truth” Philosophy & Phenomenological Research 4 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tarski, A, 1969a. Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Woodger, J H, (Ed.), Oxford.Google Scholar

Tarski, A, 1969b. “Truth and proof,” Scientific American 194 (6).Google Scholar

Turner, R, 1984. Logics for Artificial Intelligence, Ellis Horwood, New York.Google Scholar

Van Dalen, D, 1985. Logic and Structure, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar

Van Gelder, A, Ross, K and Schlipf, J S, 1988. “Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs,” 7th ACM Principles of Database Systems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wojcik, M, 1987. “Methods of automatic reasoning using non-monotonic logics—examples of implementation”, Polish Academy of Sciences, ICS Report 610, Warsaw.Google Scholar