relative expressiveness of defeasible logics ii
DESCRIPTION
Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II. Michael Maher. Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II. Michael Maher. Outline. Defeasible Reasoning Defeasible Logics Accrual Ambiguity Relative Expressiveness Results Tricks. Defeasible Reasoning. Drawing conclusions when: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness ofDefeasible Logics II
Michael Maher
![Page 2: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness ofDefeasible Logics II
Michael Maher
![Page 3: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Outline
Defeasible Reasoning Defeasible Logics
Accrual Ambiguity
Relative Expressiveness Results
Tricks
![Page 4: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Defeasible Reasoning Drawing conclusions when:
Arguments conflict Statements are inconsistent Statements are not certain - perhaps rule-of-thumb
Computational formalizations of regulations business rules contracts high-school biology
![Page 5: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Colin
Colin is a cassowary
![Page 6: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Colin
Colin is a cassowary
All cassowaries are birds
Birds fly
![Page 7: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Colin
Colin is a cassowary
All cassowaries are birds
Birds fly
Colin flies
![Page 8: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Colin
Colin is a cassowary
Cassowaries do not fly
![Page 9: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Colin
Colin is a cassowary
Cassowaries do not fly
Colin does not fly
![Page 10: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Colin
Colin is a cassowary
All cassowaries are birds
Birds fly
Colin flies
Cassowaries do not fly
Colin does not fly
![Page 11: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Colin
Colin is a cassowary
All cassowaries are birds
Birds fly, typically
Colin flies
Cassowaries do not fly,
typically
Colin does not fly
![Page 12: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Colin
Colin is a cassowary
All cassowaries are birds
Birds fly, typically
Cassowaries do not fly,
typically
Colin does not fly
cassowary(colin)
cassowary(X) → bird(X)
bird(X) flies(X)
cassowary(X) flies(X)
![Page 13: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Defeasible Reasoning There are several principles that permit an inference to
over-rule another specificity recent law over-rules an older law Constitution over-rules legislation ...
We use a partial ordering > on rules as a general mechanism to express that one rule can over-ride another
![Page 14: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Colin
Colin is a cassowary
All cassowaries are birds
Birds fly, typically
Cassowaries do not fly,
typically
Colin does not fly
cassowary(colin)
cassowary(X) → bird(X)
bird(X) flies(X)
cassowary(X) flies(X)
<
![Page 15: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Colin
cassowary(colin)
cassowary(X) → bird(X)
bird(X) flies(X)
cassowary(X) flies(X)
<
![Page 16: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Colin
cassowary(colin)
cassowary(X) → bird(X)
bird(X) flies(X)
cassowary(X) flies(X)
injured(X) flies(X)
<
![Page 17: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Defeasible Logics Two orthogonal
design choices for defeasible logics Accrual Ambiguity
![Page 18: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Accrual When one argument over-rides all competing
arguments, it should win But what should happen when there are multiple
arguments on both sides, without a single argument winning? Complicated
A simple case: If every argument on one side is over-ridden by an argument on
the other side, then
the other side, considered as a team, wins
![Page 19: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Accrual: team defeat
R1: monotreme mammal
R2: has_fur mammal
R3: lays_eggs ¬ mammal
R4: webbed_feet ¬ mammal
R1 > R3
R2 > R4
monotreme.
has_fur.
lays_eggs.
webbed_feet.
![Page 20: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Accrual: team defeat
R1: monotreme mammal
R2: has_fur mammal
R3: lays_eggs ¬ mammal
R4: webbed_feet ¬ mammal
R1 > R3
R2 > R4
monotreme.
has_fur.
lays_eggs.
webbed_feet.A platypus is a mammal
![Page 21: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Ambiguity
Nixon
RepublicanQuaker
pacifist
![Page 22: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Ambiguity
Nixon
RepublicanQuaker
pacifist
middle-aged
protests war
![Page 23: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Ambiguity - dueling principles Block ambiguity
We already agreed that we cannot conclude that Nixon is a pacifist
So, the argument that Nixon protests war is invalid So, there is no competition to the argument that Nixon does not
protest war
Propagate ambiguity There is a possibility that Nixon is a pacifist So the argument that Nixon protests war cannot be discounted So we draw no conclusion about Nixon protesting war
![Page 24: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Inference Strength
Ambiguity BlocksTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesIndividual Defeat
Ambiguity BlocksIndividual Defeat
Infers more
Infers less
For any single theory
![Page 25: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
![Page 26: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Relative Expressiveness identifies: Similar logics
• Similar languages• Similar behaviours
One logic can imitate the other• Preserving reasoning structure
![Page 27: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Logic L1 is more (or equal) expressive than L2 iff: Inference from any theory D2 in L2 can be simulated by
inference from another theory D1 in L1
D1 preserves the reasoning structure of D2, and
D1 can be computed from D2 in polynomial time
![Page 28: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Logic L1 is more (or equal) expressive than L2 iff: Inference from any theory D2 in L2 can be simulated by
inference from another theory D1 in L1
D1 preserves the reasoning structure of D2, and
D1 can be computed from D2 in polynomial time
Simulation consists of a correspondence between conclusions c1 of L1 and conclusions c2 of L2 so that D1 |- c1 if and only if D2 |- c2
![Page 29: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness Preserving the reasoning structure - indirectly
For every defeasible theory A in a class Csuch that (D1) (A) (D2)
(D1) (A) = Ø
(D2) (A) = Ø,
D2+A is simulated by D1+A
C can be: Set of all defeasible theories Defeasible theories consisting only of rules Defeasible theories consisting only of facts The empty theory (equivalence)
![Page 30: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Ambiguity BlocksTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesIndividual Defeat
Ambiguity BlocksIndividual Defeat
Simulation wrt addition of facts Maher 2012
![Page 31: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Ambiguity BlocksTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesIndividual Defeat
Ambiguity BlocksIndividual Defeat
Simulation wrt addition of facts
![Page 32: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
AB simulates AP The ambiguity propagating logics employ three inference levels
definite conclusions defeasible conclusions support: a very weak evidence for a conclusion
The simulating theory derives three kinds of conclusions strict(q) q supp(q)
which are all reasoned with as defeasible knowledge
The simulating theory reflects the inference rules for , and
![Page 33: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Ambiguity BlocksTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesIndividual Defeat
Ambiguity BlocksIndividual Defeat
Simulation wrt addition of facts
![Page 34: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Ambiguity BlocksTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesIndividual Defeat
Ambiguity BlocksIndividual Defeat
Simulation wrt addition of facts
![Page 35: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Ambiguity BlocksTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesIndividual Defeat
Ambiguity BlocksIndividual Defeat
Simulation wrt addition of facts
![Page 36: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Simulation wrt addition of rules
![Page 37: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
TD simulates ID wrt rules
r1: B1 p p C1 :s1
r2: B2 p p C2 :s2
r3: B3 p p C3 :s3
r4: B4 p p C4 :s4
r5: B5 p p C5 :s5
![Page 38: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
TD simulates ID wrt rules r1: B1 p1 p1 C1 :s1 r1: B1 p p4 C1 :s1
r2: B2 p p1 C2 :s2 r2: B2 p p4 C2 :s2
r3: B3 p p1 C3 :s3 r3: B3 p p4 C3 :s3
r4: B4 p p1 C4 :s4 r4: B4 p4 p4 C4 :s4
r5: B5 p p1 C5 :s5 r5: B5 p p4 C5 :s5
r1: B1 p p2 C1 :s1
r2: B2 p2 p2 C2 :s2
r3: B3 p p2 C3 :s3
r4: B4 p p2 C4 :s4
r5: B5 p p2 C5 :s5
r1: B1 p p3 C1 :s1 r1: B1 p p5 C1 :s1
r2: B2 p p3 C2 :s2 r2: B2 p p5 C2 :s2
r3: B3 p3 p3 C3 :s3 r3: B3 p p5 C3 :s3
r4: B4 p p3 C4 :s4 r4: B4 p p5 C4 :s4
r5: B5 p p3 C5 :s5 r5: B5 p5 p5 C5 :s5
![Page 39: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
TD simulates ID wrt rules (AB)
p
¬p
p1
¬p1
p2
¬p2
p1 p
¬ p2 ¬ p
![Page 40: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
TD simulates ID wrt rules (AB)
p
¬p
p
p1
¬p1
p2
¬p2
p1 p
¬ p2 ¬ p
p
![Page 41: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
TD simulates ID wrt rules (AB)
p
¬p
p
p1
¬p1
p2
¬p2
p1 p
¬ p2 ¬ p
p
Concludes nothing Concludes p
![Page 42: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
TD simulates ID wrt rules (AB) To patch this problem we add extra rules:
For every literal qone(q) q
This rule has lower priority than the rule for ~q So it does not interfere with existing conclusions
For every rule B qB one(q)
![Page 43: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Ambiguity BlocksTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesIndividual Defeat
Ambiguity BlocksIndividual Defeat
Simulation wrt addition of rules
≠
![Page 44: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
ID simulates TD wrt rules (AP)
Ambiguity propagating logics employ both and Rules in simulating theory are used by both inference rules Devise rules only useful for
….., g, ¬g q
g
¬g inferences are also valid inferences [Billington etal, 2010]
so no rules only useful for are needed.
![Page 45: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
ID simulates TD wrt rules (AP) Ambiguity propagating logics employ both and
Need to identify strict conclusions
q strict(q)
<
¬ strict(q)
strict(q) true(q)
>
¬ true(q)
Infers true(q) iff infers true(q) iff infers q
![Page 46: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Relative Expressiveness
Ambiguity BlocksTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesIndividual Defeat
Ambiguity BlocksIndividual Defeat
Simulation wrt addition of rules
≠
![Page 47: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Inference Strength
Ambiguity BlocksTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesTeam Defeat
Ambiguity PropagatesIndividual Defeat
Ambiguity BlocksIndividual Defeat
Infers more
Infers less
For any single theory
![Page 48: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Conclusions Simulation wrt addition of facts is less discriminating
than it first appears But it confirms the similarity of the logics
Team defeat is no more expressive than individual defeat Probably doesn’t extend to other forms of accrual
Different treatments of ambiguity have different expressiveness Probably extends to other defeasible reasoning formalisms
Relative expressiveness is only weakly related to inference strength
![Page 49: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Future work Relative expressiveness is a tool for comparing the
many defeasible reasoning formalisms Nute and Maier’s defeasible logics Plausible logics Courteous logic programs Ordered logic programs LP without NAF Argumentation systems
![Page 50: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
![Page 51: Relative Expressiveness of Defeasible Logics II](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033104/568147bf550346895db500cf/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Questions?