inconsistency tolerance in sneps
DESCRIPTION
Inconsistency Tolerance in SNePS. Stuart C. Shapiro Department of Computer Science and Engineering, and Center for Cognitive Science University at Buffalo, The State University of New York 201 Bell Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-2000 [email protected] http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
cse@buff
alo
Inconsistency Tolerance in SNePS
Stuart C. Shapiro Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
and Center for Cognitive Science
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
201 Bell Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-2000
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 2
cse@buff
alo
Acknowledgements
• João Martins
• Frances L. Johnson
• Bharat Bhushan
• The SNePS Research Group
• NSF, Instituto Nacional de Investigação Cientifica, Rome Air Development Center, AFOSR, U.S. Army CECOM
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 3
cse@buff
alo
OutlineIntroductionSome Rules of Inference~I and Belief RevisionCredibility Ordering and Automatic BRReasoning in Different ContextsDefault Reasoning by Preferential OrderingSummary
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 4
cse@buff
alo
SNePS
• A logic- and network-based
• Knowledge representation
• Reasoning
• And acting• System [Shapiro & Group ’02]
This talk will ignore network and acting aspects.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 5
cse@buff
alo
Logic
• Based on R, the logic of relevant implication
[Anderson & Belnap ’75; Martins & Shapiro ’88, Shapiro ’92]
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 6
cse@buff
alo
Supported wffs
P{… <origin tag, origin set> …}
hyp hypothesisder derived
Set of hypothesesFrom which Phas been derived.
Origin set tracks relevance and ATMS assumptions.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 7
cse@buff
alo
OutlineIntroductionSome Rules of Inference~I and Belief RevisionCredibility Ordering and Automatic BRReasoning in Different ContextsDefault Reasoning by Preferential OrderingSummary
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 8
cse@buff
alo
Rules of Inference:Hypothesis
Hyp: P {<hyp,{P}>}
: whale(Willy) and free(Willy). wff3: free(Willy) and whale(Willy) {<hyp,{wff3}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 9
cse@buff
alo
Rules of Inference:&E
&E: From A and B {<t,s>}
infer A {<der,s>} or B {<der,s>}
wff3: free(Willy) and whale(Willy) {<hyp,{wff3}>}
: free(Willy)? wff2: free(Willy) {<der,{wff3}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 10
cse@buff
alo
Rules of Inference:andorE
The os is the union of os's of parents
wff3: free(Willy) and whale(Willy) {<hyp,{wff3}>}
wff6:all(x)(andor(0,1){manatee(x), dolphin(x), whale(x)})
{<hyp,{wff6}>}
: dolphin(Willy)?
wff9: ~dolphin(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff6}>}
At most 1
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 11
cse@buff
alo
Rules of Inference:=>E
The origin set is the union of os's of parents.
Since wff10: all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)) {<hyp,{wff10}>}
and wff1: whale(Willy){<der,{wff3}>}
I infer wff11: mammal(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff10}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 12
cse@buff
alo
Rules of Inference:=>I
origin set is diff of os's of parents.
wff12: all(x)(orca(x) => whale(x)) {<hyp,{wff12}>}
: orca(Keiko) => mammal(Keiko)?
Let me assume that wff13: orca(Keiko) {<hyp,{wff13}>}
Since wff12: all(x)(orca(x) => whale(x)) {<hyp,{wff12}>}and wff13: orca(Keiko){<hyp,{wff13}>}
I infer whale(Keiko) {<der,{wff12,wff13}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 13
cse@buff
alo
Rules of Inference:=>I (cont’d)
origin set is diff of os's of parents.
Since wff10: all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)) {<hyp,{wff10}>}and wff16: whale(Keiko) {<der,{wff12,wff13}>}
I infer mammal(Keiko) {<der,{wff10,wff12,wff13}>}
Since wff14: mammal(Keiko) {<der,{wff10,wff12,wff13}>}was derived assuming
wff13: orca(Keiko) {<hyp,{wff13}>}I infer
wff15: orca(Keiko) => mammal(Keiko) {<der,{wff10,wff12}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 14
cse@buff
alo
OutlineIntroductionSome Rules of Inference~I and Belief RevisionCredibility Ordering and Automatic BRReasoning in Different ContextsDefault Reasoning by Preferential OrderingSummary
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 15
cse@buff
alo
~I and Belief Revision
• ~I triggered when a contradiction is derived.
• Proposition to be negated must be one of the hypotheses underlying the contradiction.
• Origin set is the rest of the hypotheses.
• SNeBR [Martins & Shapiro ’88] involved in choosing the culprit.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 16
cse@buff
alo
Adding Inconsistent Hypotheses
wff19: all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)){<hyp,{wff19}>}
wff20: all(x)(andor(0,1){mammal(x), fish(x)})
{<hyp,{wff20}>}
wff21: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales))
{<hyp,{wff21}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 17
cse@buff
alo
Finding the Contradiction: has(Willy, scales)?Since wff19: all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)) {<hyp,{wff19}>}and wff1: whale(Willy) {<der,{wff3}>}
I infer fish(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff19}>}
Since wff21: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales)) {<hyp,{wff21}>}and wff23: fish(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff19}>}
I infer has(Willy,scales) {<der,{wff3,wff19,wff21}>}
Since wff20: all(x)(andor(0,1){mammal(x), fish(x)}) {<hyp,{wff20}>}and wff11: mammal(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff10}>}
I infer it is not the case that wff23: fish(Willy)
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 18
cse@buff
alo
Manual Belief RevisionA contradiction was detected within context default-defaultct.
The contradiction involves the newly derived proposition: wff24: ~fish(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff10,wff20}>} and the previously existing proposition: wff23: fish(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff19}>}
You have the following options: 1. [c]ontinue anyway, knowing that a contradiction is derivable; 2. [r]e-start the exact same run in a different context which is not inconsistent; 3. [d]rop the run altogether.
(please type c, r or d)=><= r
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 19
cse@buff
alo
BR AdviceIn order to make the context consistent you must delete
at least one hypothesis from the set listed below.This set of hypotheses is known to be inconsistent: 1 : wff20: all(x)(andor(0,1){mammal(x),fish(x)}) {<hyp,{wff20}>}
(1 dependent proposition: (wff24)) 2 : wff19: all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)) {<hyp,{wff19}>}
(2 dependent propositions: (wff23 wff22)) 3 : wff10: all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)){<hyp,{wff10}>}
(3 dependent propositions: (wff24 wff15 wff11)) 4 : wff3: free(Willy) and whale(Willy) {<hyp,{wff3}>}
(8 dependent propositions: (wff24 wff23 wff22 wff11 wff9 wff5 wff2 wff1))
User deletes #2: wff19.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 20
cse@buff
alo
Willy has no Scales
Since wff21: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales))
{<hyp,{wff21}>}
and it is not the case that wff23: fish(Willy)
{<der,{wff3,wff19}>}
I infer it is not the case that
wff22: has(Willy,scales) {<der,{wff3,wff19,wff21}>}
wff26: ~has(Willy,scales){<der,{wff3,wff10,wff20,wff21}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 21
cse@buff
alo
Final KB: hyps & positive ders: list-asserted-wffs
wff3: free(Willy) and whale(Willy) {<hyp,{wff3}>}
wff6: all(x)(andor(0,1){manatee(x),dolphin(x),whale(x)})
{<hyp,{wff6}>}
wff10: all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)) {<hyp,{wff10}>}
wff12: all(x)(orca(x) => whale(x)) {<hyp,{wff12}>}
wff20: all(x)(andor(0,1){mammal(x),fish(x)}) {<hyp,{wff20}>}
wff21: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales)) {<hyp,{wff21}>}
wff1: whale(Willy) {<der,{wff3}>}
wff2: free(Willy) {<der,{wff3}>}
wff11: mammal(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff10}>}
wff15: orca(Keiko) => mammal(Keiko) {<der,{wff10,wff12}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 22
cse@buff
alo
Final KB: hyps & negative ders: list-asserted-wffs
wff3: free(Willy) and whale(Willy) {<hyp,{wff3}>}
wff6: all(x)(andor(0,1){manatee(x),dolphin(x),whale(x)})
{<hyp,{wff6}>}
wff10: all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)) {<hyp,{wff10}>}
wff12: all(x)(orca(x) => whale(x)) {<hyp,{wff12}>}
wff20: all(x)(andor(0,1){mammal(x),fish(x)}) {<hyp,{wff20}>}
wff21: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales)) {<hyp,{wff21}>}
wff9: ~dolphin(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff10}>}
wff24: ~fish(Willy) {<der,{wff3,wff10,wff20}>}
wff25: ~(all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x))) {<ext,{wff3,wff10,wff20}>}
wff26: ~has(Willy,scales) {<der,{wff3,wff10,wff20,wff21}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 23
cse@buff
alo
Summary
• Logic is paraconsistent:P{<t1, {h1 … hi}>},
~P{<t2, {h(i+1) … hn}>}
~hj
• When a contradiction is explicitly found, the user is engaged in its resolution.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 24
cse@buff
alo
OutlineIntroductionSome Rules of Inference~I and Belief RevisionCredibility Ordering and Automatic BRReasoning in Different ContextsDefault Reasoning by Preferential OrderingSummary
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 25
cse@buff
alo
Credibility Ordering and Automatic Belief Revision*
• Hypotheses may be given sources.• Sources may be given relative credibility.• Hypotheses inherit relative credibility from
sources.• Hypotheses may be given relative
credibility directly. (Not shown.)• SNeBR may use relative credibility to
choose a culprit by itself. [Shapiro & Johnson ’00]
*Not yet in released version.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 26
cse@buff
alo
Contradictory Sourceswff1: all(x)(andor(0,1){mammal(x),fish(x)}) {<hyp,{wff1}>}
wff2: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales)) {<hyp,{wff2}>}
wff3: all(x)(orca(x) => whale(x)) {<hyp,{wff3}>}
: Source(Melville, all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)).).
wff5: Source(Melville,all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)))
{<hyp,{wff5}>}
: Source(Darwin, all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)).).
wff7: Source(Darwin,all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)))
{<hyp,{wff7}>}
: Sgreater(Darwin, Melville). wff8: Sgreater(Darwin,Melville) {<hyp,{wff8}>}
wff11: free(Willy) and whale(Willy) {<hyp,{wff11}>}
Note: Source & Sgreater props are regular object-language props.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 27
cse@buff
alo
: has(Willy, scales)?
Since wff4: all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)) {<hyp,{wff4}>}and wff9: whale(Willy) {<der,{wff11}>}I infer fish(Willy) {<der,{wff4,wff11}>}
Since wff2: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales)) {<hyp,{wff2}>}and wff14: fish(Willy) {<der,{wff4,wff11}>}I infer has(Willy,scales)
Since wff6: all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)) {<hyp,{wff6}>}and wff9: whale(Willy) {<der,{wff11}>}I infer mammal(Willy)
Since wff1: all(x)(andor(0,1){mammal(x),fish(x)}) {<hyp,{wff1}>}
and wff15: mammal(Willy) {<der,{wff6,wff11}>}I infer it is not the case that
wff14: fish(Willy) {<der,{wff4,wff11}>}
Finding the Contradiction
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 28
cse@buff
alo
Automatic BRA contradiction was detected within context default-defaultct.The contradiction involves the newly derived proposition:
wff17: ~fish(Willy) {<der,{wff1,wff6,wff11}>}
and the previously existing proposition: wff14: fish(Willy) {<der,{wff4,wff11}>}
The least believed hypothesis: (wff4) The most common hypothesis: (nil) The hypothesis supporting the fewest wffs: (wff1)
I removed the following belief: wff4: all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)) {<hyp,{wff4}>}
I no longer believe the following 2 propositions: wff14: fish(Willy) {<der,{wff4,wff11}>}
wff13: has(Willy,scales) {<der,{wff2,wff4,wff11}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 29
cse@buff
alo
Summary
• User may select automatic BR.
• Relative credibility is used.
• User is informed of lost beliefs.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 30
cse@buff
alo
OutlineIntroductionSome Rules of Inference~I and Belief RevisionCredibility Ordering and Automatic BRReasoning in Different ContextsDefault Reasoning by Preferential OrderingSummary
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 31
cse@buff
alo
Reasoning in Different Contexts
• A context is a set of hypotheses and all propositions derived from them.
• Reasoning is performed within a context.• A conclusion is available in every context that
is a superset of its origin set. [Martins & Shapiro ’83]
• Contradictions across contexts are not noticed.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 32
cse@buff
alo
Darwin Context
: set-context Darwin ()
: set-default-context Darwin
wff1: all(x)(andor(0,1){mammal(x),fish(x)})
{<hyp,{wff1}>}
wff2: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales)) {<hyp,{wff2}>}
wff3: all(x)(orca(x) => whale(x)) {<hyp,{wff3}>}
wff4: all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)) {<hyp,{wff4}>}
wff7: free(Willy) and whale(Willy) {<hyp,{wff7}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 33
cse@buff
alo
Melville Context
: describe-context((assertions (wff8 wff7 wff4 wff3 wff2 wff1)) (restriction nil) (named (science)))
: set-context Melville (wff8 wff7 wff3 wff2 wff1)((assertions (wff8 wff7 wff3 wff2 wff1)) (restriction nil) (named (melville)))
: set-default-context Melville((assertions (wff8 wff7 wff3 wff2 wff1)) (restriction nil) (named (melville)))
: all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)). wff9: all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)) {<hyp,{wff9}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 34
cse@buff
alo
Melville: Willy has scales: has(Willy, scales)?
Since wff9: all(x)(whale(x) => fish(x)){<hyp,{wff9}>}and wff5: whale(Willy) {<der,{wff7}>}I infer fish(Willy) {<der,{wff7,wff9}>}
Since wff2: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales))
{<hyp,{wff2}>}and wff11: fish(Willy) {<der,{wff7,wff9}>}I infer has(Willy,scales) {<der,{wff2,wff7,wff9}>}
wff10: has(Willy,scales) {<der,{wff2,wff7,wff9}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 35
cse@buff
alo
Darwin: No scales: set-default-context Darwin: has(Willy, scales)?
Since wff4: all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x)) {<hyp,{wff4}>}and wff5: whale(Willy) {<der,{wff7}>}I infer mammal(Willy)
Since wff1: all(x)(andor(0,1){mammal(x),fish(x)}) {<hyp,{wff1}>}
and wff12: mammal(Willy) {<der,{wff4,wff7}>}I infer it is not the case that wff11: fish(Willy)
Since wff2: all(x)(fish(x) <=> has(x,scales)) {<hyp,{wff2}>}and it is not the case that wff11: fish(Willy)
{<der,{wff7,wff9}>}I infer it is not the case that wff10: has(Willy,scales)
wff15: ~has(Willy,scales) {<der,{wff1,wff2,wff4,wff7}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 36
cse@buff
alo
Summary
• Contradictory information may be isolated in different contexts.
• Reasoning is performed in a single context.
• Results are available in other contexts.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 37
cse@buff
alo
OutlineIntroductionSome Rules of Inference~I and Belief RevisionCredibility Ordering and Automatic BRReasoning in Different ContextsDefault Reasoning by Preferential OrderingSummary
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 38
cse@buff
alo
Default Reasoning by Preferential Ordering
• No special syntax for default rules.
• If P and ~P are derived– but argument for one is undercut by an
argument for the other– don’t believe the undercut conclusion.
• Unlike BR, believe the hypotheses, but not a conclusion.
[Grosof ’97, Bhushan ’03]
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 39
cse@buff
alo
Preclusion Rules in SNePS*
• P undercuts ~P if– Precludes(P, ~P) or
– Every origin set of ~P has some hyp h such that there is some hyp q in an origin set of P such that Precludes(q, h).
• Precludes(P, Q) is a proposition like any other.
*Not yet in released version.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 40
cse@buff
alo
Animal Modes of Mobility
wff1: all(x)(orca(x) => whale(x))
wff2: all(x)(whale(x) => mammal(x))
wff3: all(x)(deer(x) => mammal(x))
wff4: all(x)(tuna(x) => fish(x))
wff5: all(x)(canary(x) => bird(x))
wff6: all(x)(penguin(x) => bird(x))
wff7: all(x)(andor(0,1){swims(x),flies(x),runs(x)})
wff8: all(x)(mammal(x) => runs(x))
wff9: all(x)(fish(x) => swims(x))
wff10: all(x)(bird(x) => flies(x))
wff11: all(x)(whale(x) => swims(x))
wff12: all(x)(penguin(x) => swims(x))
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 41
cse@buff
alo
Using Preclusion for Exceptions
wff13: Precludes(all(x)(whale(x) => swims(x)),
all(x)(mammal(x) => runs(x)))
wff14: Precludes(all(x)(penguin(x) => swims(x)),
all(x)(bird(x) => flies(x)))
wff15: orca(Willy)
wff16: tuna(Charlie)
wff17: deer(Bambi)
wff18: canary(Tweety)
wff19: penguin(Opus)
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 42
cse@buff
alo
Who Swims?(Contradictory Conclusions)
: swims(?x)?
I infer swims(Opus)
I infer swims(Charlie)
I infer swims(Willy)
I infer flies(Tweety)
I infer it is not the case that swims(Tweety)
I infer flies(Opus)
I infer it is not the case that wff20: swims(Opus)
I infer runs(Willy)
I infer it is not the case that wff24: swims(Willy)
I infer runs(Bambi)
I infer it is not the case that swims(Bambi)
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 43
cse@buff
alo
Using Preclusionto Arbitrate Contradictions (1)
Since wff13: Precludes(all(x)(whale(x) => swims(x)), all(x)(mammal(x) => runs(x)))
and wff11: all(x)(whale(x) => swims(x)) {<hyp,{wff11}>} holds within the BS defined by context default-defaultct
Therefore wff34: ~swims(Willy)containing in its support wff8: all(x)(mammal(x) => runs(x))
is precluded by wff24: swims(Willy)that contains in its support wff11:all(x)(whale(x) => swims(x))
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 44
cse@buff
alo
Using Preclusionto Arbitrate Contradictions (2)
Since wff14: Precludes(all(x)(penguin(x) => swims(x)),
all(x)(bird(x) => flies(x)))
and wff12: all(x)(penguin(x) => swims(x))
holds within the BS defined by context default-defaultct
Therefore wff31: ~swims(Opus)
containing in its support
wff10:all(x)(bird(x) => flies(x))
is precluded by wff20: swims(Opus)
that contains in its support
wff12: all(x)(penguin(x) => swims(x))
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 45
cse@buff
alo
The Swimmersand Non-Swimmers
wff38: ~swims(Bambi) {<der,{wff3,wff7,wff8,wff17}>}
wff28: ~swims(Tweety) {<der,{wff5,wff7,wff10,wff18}>}
wff24: swims(Willy) {<der,{wff1,wff11,wff15}>}
wff22: swims(Charlie) {<der,{wff4,wff9,wff16}>}
wff20: swims(Opus) {<der,{wff12,wff19}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 46
cse@buff
alo
Two-Level Preclusion
wff1: all(x)(robin(x) => bird(x))wff2: all(x)(kiwi(x) => bird(x))
wff3: all(x)(bird(x) => flies(x))wff4: all(x)(bird(x) => (~flies(x)))
wff5: all(x)(robin(x) => flies(x))wff6: all(x)(kiwi(x) => (~flies(x)))
Example from Delgrande & Schaub ‘00
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 47
cse@buff
alo
Preferenceswff7: Precludes(all(x)(robin(x) => flies(x)), all(x)(bird(x) => (~flies(x))))wff8: Precludes(all(x)(kiwi(x) => (~flies(x))), all(x)(bird(x) => flies(x)))
wff12: (~location(New Zealand)) => Precludes(all(x)(bird(x) => flies(x)), all(x)(bird(x) => (~flies(x))))wff14: location(New Zealand) => Precludes(all(x)(bird(x) => (~flies(x))), all(x)(bird(x) => flies(x)))
wff10: ~location(New Zealand)wff15: Precludes(location(New Zealand), ~location(New Zealand))
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 48
cse@buff
alo
Who flies?
wff16: robin(Robin)
wff17: kiwi(Kenneth)
wff18: bird(Betty)
: flies(?x)?
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 49
cse@buff
alo
Outside New Zealand
wff24: ~flies(Kenneth){<der,{wff6,wff17}>,
<der,{wff2,wff4,wff17}>,
<der,{wff2,wff4,wff6,wff17}>}
wff21: flies(Robin) {<der,{wff5,wff16}>,
<der,{wff1,wff3,wff16}>}
wff19: flies(Betty) {<der,{wff3,wff18}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 50
cse@buff
alo
Inside New Zealand: location("New Zealand").
wff9: location(New Zealand)
: flies(?x)?
wff24: ~flies(Kenneth) {<der,{wff6,wff17}>,
<der,{wff2,wff4,wff17}>,
<der,{wff2,wff4,wff6,wff17}>}
wff21: flies(Robin) {<der,{wff5,wff16}>,
<der,{wff1,wff3,wff16}>}
wff20: ~flies(Betty) {<der,{wff4,wff18}>}
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 51
cse@buff
alo
Summary• Contradictions may be handled by DR
instead of by BR.
• Hypotheses retained; conclusion removed.
• DR uses preferential ordering among contradictory conclusions or among supporting hypotheses.
• Precludes forms object-language proposition that may be reasoned with or reasoned about.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 52
cse@buff
alo
OutlineIntroductionSome Rules of Inference~I and Belief RevisionCredibility Ordering and Automatic BRReasoning in Different ContextsDefault Reasoning by Preferential OrderingSummary
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 53
cse@buff
alo
SummaryInconsistency Tolerance in SNePS
• Inconsistency across contexts is harmless.• Inconsistency about unrelated topic is harmless.• Explicit contradiction may be resolved by user.• Explicit contradiction may be resolved by
system using relative credibility of propositions or sources.
• Explicit contradiction may be resolved by system using preferential ordering of conclusions or hypotheses.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 54
cse@buff
alo
For more information
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/sneps/
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 55
cse@buff
alo
References IA. R. Anderson, A. R. and N. D. Belnap, Jr. (1975) Entailment Volume I
(Princeton: Princeton University Press).
B. Bhushan (2003) Preferential Ordering of Beliefs for Default Reasoning, M.S. Thesis, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
J. P. Delgrande and T. Schaub (2000) The role of default logic in knowledge representation. In J. Minker, ed. Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers) 107-126.
B. N. Grosof (1997) Courteous Logic Programs: Prioritized Conflict Handling for Rules, IBM Research Report RC 20836, revised.
June, 2003 S. C. Shapiro 56
cse@buff
alo
References IIJ. P. Martins and S. C. Shapiro (1983) Reasoning in multiple belief spaces,
Proc. Eighth IJCAI (Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann) 370-373. J. P. Martins and S. C. Shapiro (1988) A model for belief revision, Artificial
Intelligence 35, 25-79.
S. C. Shapiro (1992) Relevance logic in computer science. In A. R. Anderson, N. D. Belnap, Jr., M. Dunn, et al. Entailment Volume II (Princeton: Princeton University Press) 553-563.
S. C. Shapiro and The SNePS Implementation Group (2002)
SNePS 2.6 User's Manual, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
S. C. Shapiro and F. L. Johnson (2000) Automatic belief revision in SNePS. In C.
Baral & M. Truszczyński, eds., Proc. 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning.