Nicholas Leisegang

Nicholas Leisegang, Thomas Meyer, Ivan Varzniczak

Recent work in defeasible reasoning has seen notions of preferential semantics and entailment in the style of Kraus et al. applied to modal logics. However, work in this field has focussed primarily on satisfiability checking, and monotonic notions of entailment, which may be inferentially weak. One particular modal logic where this has been introduced is propositional standpoint logics, where modalities can express the views of different viewpoints. This has resulted in the formalisation of propositional defeasible standpoint logic (PDSL). In this paper, we propose a means of lifting the class of (non-monotonic) rational entailment relations from traditional KLM-style reasoning to a fragment of PDSL. In order to do so, we extend the expressivity of PDSL via situated standpoint conditionals, allowing us to talk about a defeasible conditional holding in the context of a given standpoint. This allows us to re-characterise the syntax of PDSL in terms of situated conditionals, and shows that a large fragment of PDSL is expressible as a set of situated conditionals. We then focus on characterising non-monotonic entailment in this fragment, defining a method to transport any ranking-based entailment relation from the propositional case into the PDSL case. This is first described in the general case and then considered in the specific cases of rational and lexicographic closures, providing a faithful translation of each inference into PDSL. We also show that entailment-checking in this fragment of PDSL can be done largely using algorithms from the propositional case, while preserving complexity bounds.

Nicholas Leisegang, Giovanni Casini, Thomas Meyer

Weighted-knowledge bases and cost-based semantics represent a recent formalism introduced by Bienvenu et al. for Ontology Mediated Data Querying in the case where a given knowledge base is inconsistent. This is done by adding a weight to each statement in the knowledge base (KB), and then giving each DL interpretation a cost based on how often it breaks rules in the KB. In this paper we compare this approach with c-representations, a form of non-monotonic reasoning originally introduced by Kern-Isberner. c-Representations describe a means to interpret defeasible concept inclusions in the first-order case. This is done by assigning a numerical ranking to each interpretations via penalties for each violated conditional. We compare these two approaches on a semantic level. In particular, we show that under certain conditions a weighted knowledge base and a set of defeasible conditionals can generate the same ordering on interpretations, and therefore an equivalence of semantic structures up to relative cost. Moreover, we compare entailment described in both cases, where certain notions are equivalently expressible in both formalisms. Our results have the potential to benefit further work on both cost-based semantics and c-representations

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.

Lucas Carr, Nicholas Leisegang, Thomas Meyer et al.

Defeasible conditionals are a form of non-monotonic inference which enable the expression of statements like "if $φ$ then normally $ψ$". The KLM framework defines a semantics for the propositional case of defeasible conditionals by construction of a preference ordering over possible worlds. The pattern of reasoning induced by these semantics is characterised by consequence relations satisfying certain desirable properties of non-monotonic reasoning. In FCA, implications are used to describe dependencies between attributes. However, these implications are unsuitable to reason with erroneous data or data prone to exceptions. Until recently, the topic of non-monotonic inference in FCA has remained largely uninvestigated. In this paper, we provide a construction of the KLM framework for defeasible reasoning in FCA and show that this construction remains faithful to the principle of non-monotonic inference described in the original framework. We present an additional argument that, while remaining consistent with the original ideas around non-monotonic reasoning, the defeasible reasoning we propose in FCA offers a more contextual view on inference, providing the ability for more relevant conclusions to be drawn when compared to the propositional case.