Ivan Varzinczak

Zied Bouraoui, Sebastien Konieczny, Thanh Ma et al.

This paper introduces a novel method for merging open-domain terminological knowledge. It takes advantage of the Region Connection Calculus (RCC5), a formalism used to represent regions in a topological space and to reason about their set-theoretic relationships. To this end, we first propose a faithful translation of terminological knowledge provided by several and potentially conflicting sources into region spaces. The merging is then performed on these spaces, and the result is translated back into the underlying language of the input sources. Our approach allows us to benefit from the expressivity and the flexibility of RCC5 while dealing with conflicting knowledge in a principled way.

Richard Booth, Ivan Varzinczak

Rational belief revision is commonly viewed as being based on a preference order between possible worlds, with the resulting new belief set being those sentences true in all the most preferred models of the incoming new information. Usually, such a preference order is taken to be a total preorder. Nevertheless, there are other, more general classes of ordering that can also be employed. In this paper, we explore two such classes that have been studied within the theory of rational choice but have seen limited or no application in belief revision. We begin with interval orders, introduced by Fishburn in the '80s, which associate with each possible world a nonnegative `interval' of plausibility. We then move on to biorders, studied by Aleskerov, Bouyssou, and Monjardet, which generalise interval orders by allowing the intervals to have negative lengths, a feature that can be used to capture a notion of dissonance or instability. We provide axiomatic characterisations of these two resulting families of belief revision operators, as well as of two further families of interest that lie between interval orders and biorders. We show that while biorder-based revisions satisfy the Success postulate, they do not always yield consistent outputs. By modifying their definition to discard inputs that lead to inconsistency as `incredible', we derive new families of so-called non-prioritised revision that satisfy the Consistency postulate, but not the Success one. These families are linked to credibility-limited revision operators of Hansson et al., but for which the set of credible sentences does not satisfy the single-sentence closure condition. We argue that the biorder-based approach is well-suited for scenarios where an agent might initially reject new information, but may accept it when presented with additional explanation.

Nicholas Leisegang, Thomas Meyer, Ivan Varzinczak

In this paper, we introduce a new defeasible version of propositional standpoint logic by integrating Kraus et al.'s defeasible conditionals, Britz and Varzinczak's notions of defeasible necessity and distinct possibility, along with Leisegang et al.'s approach to defeasibility into the standpoint logics of Gómez Álvarez and Rudolph. The resulting logical framework allows for the expression of defeasibility on the level of implications, standpoint modal operators, and standpoint-sharpening statements. We provide a preferential semantics for this extended language and propose a tableaux calculus, which is shown to be sound and complete with respect to preferential entailment. We also establish the computational complexity of the tableaux procedure to be in PSpace.

Giovanni Casini, Thomas Meyer, Ivan Varzinczak

Conditionals are useful for modelling, but are not always sufficiently expressive for capturing information accurately. In this paper we make the case for a form of conditional that is situation-based. These conditionals are more expressive than classical conditionals, are general enough to be used in several application domains, and are able to distinguish, for example, between expectations and counterfactuals. Formally, they are shown to generalise the conditional setting in the style of Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor. We show that situation-based conditionals can be described in terms of a set of rationality postulates. We then propose an intuitive semantics for these conditionals, and present a representation result which shows that our semantic construction corresponds exactly to the description in terms of postulates. With the semantics in place, we proceed to define a form of entailment for situated conditional knowledge bases, which we refer to as minimal closure. It is reminiscent of and, indeed, inspired by, the version of entailment for propositional conditional knowledge bases known as rational closure. Finally, we proceed to show that it is possible to reduce the computation of minimal closure to a series of propositional entailment and satisfiability checks. While this is also the case for rational closure, it is somewhat surprising that the result carries over to minimal closure.

Katarina Britz, Giovanni Casini, Thomas Meyer et al.

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.

Richard Booth, Giovanni Casini, Thomas Meyer et al.

Propositional Typicality Logic (PTL) is a recently proposed logic, obtained by enriching classical propositional logic with a typicality operator capturing the most typical (alias normal or conventional) situations in which a given sentence holds. The semantics of PTL is in terms of ranked models as studied in the well-known KLM approach to preferential reasoning and therefore KLM-style rational consequence relations can be embedded in PTL. In spite of the non-monotonic features introduced by the semantics adopted for the typicality operator, the obvious Tarskian definition of entailment for PTL remains monotonic and is therefore not appropriate in many contexts. Our first important result is an impossibility theorem showing that a set of proposed postulates that at first all seem appropriate for a notion of entailment with regard to typicality cannot be satisfied simultaneously. Closer inspection reveals that this result is best interpreted as an argument for advocating the development of more than one type of PTL entailment. In the spirit of this interpretation, we investigate three different (semantic) versions of entailment for PTL, each one based on the definition of rational closure as introduced by Lehmann and Magidor for KLM-style conditionals, and constructed using different notions of minimality.

Richard Booth, Thomas Meyer, Ivan Varzinczak et al.

Standard belief change assumes an underlying logic containing full classical propositional logic. However, there are good reasons for considering belief change in less expressive logics as well. In this paper we build on recent investigations by Delgrande on contraction for Horn logic. We show that the standard basic form of contraction, partial meet, is too strong in the Horn case. This result stands in contrast to Delgrande's conjecture that orderly maxichoice is the appropriate form of contraction for Horn logic. We then define a more appropriate notion of basic contraction for the Horn case, influenced by the convexity property holding for full propositional logic and which we refer to as infra contraction. The main contribution of this work is a result which shows that the construction method for Horn contraction for belief sets based on our infra remainder sets corresponds exactly to Hansson's classical kernel contraction for belief sets, when restricted to Horn logic. This result is obtained via a detour through contraction for belief bases. We prove that kernel contraction for belief bases produces precisely the same results as the belief base version of infra contraction. The use of belief bases to obtain this result provides evidence for the conjecture that Horn belief change is best viewed as a hybrid version of belief set change and belief base change. One of the consequences of the link with base contraction is the provision of a representation result for Horn contraction for belief sets in which a version of the Core-retainment postulate features.