Joeri Engelfriet

A Temporal Model Theory for Default Logic

By explicitly identifying the temporal aspect of a default rule as it is used in a reasoning process, it is argued that a natural semantic theory of Reiters default logic is a temporal one. To be able to accommodate the lack of complete knowledge at any point in time, the temporal models should be partial models. A temporal partial logic is introduced, and it is shown that this logic can provide semantics for Reiters default logic.

A survey of languages for specifying dynamics: a knowledge engineering perspective

A number of formal specification languages for knowledge-based systems has been developed. Characteristics for knowledge-based systems are a complex knowledge base and an inference engine which uses this knowledge to solve a given problem. Specification languages for knowledge-based systems have to cover both aspects. They have to provide the means to specify a complex and large amount of knowledge and they have to provide the means to specify the dynamic reasoning behavior of a knowledge-based system. We focus on the second aspect. For this purpose, we survey existing approaches for specifying dynamic behavior in related areas of research. In fact, we have taken approaches for the specification of information systems (Language for Conceptual Modeling and TROLL), approaches for the specification of database updates and logic programming (Transaction Logic and Dynamic Database Logic) and the generic specification framework of abstract state machines.

Specification of Nonmonotonic Reasonong

Two levels of description of nonmonotonic reasoning are distinguished. For these levels semantical formalizations are given. The first level is defined semantically by the notion of belief state frame, the second level by the notion of reasoning frame. We introduce two specification languages to describe nonmonotonic reasoning at each of the levels: (1) a specification language for level 1, with formal semantics based on belief state frames, (2) a fragment of infinitary temporal logic as a general specification language for level 2, with formal semantics based on reasoning frames. In our framework every level 2 description can be abstracted to level 1, and for every level 1 description there are level 2 descriptions which are a specialization of it.

An Interpretation of Default Logic in Minimal Temporal Epistemic Logic

When reasoning about complex domains, where information available is usually only partial, nonmonotonic reasoning can be an important tool. One of the formalisms introduced in this area is Reiters Default Logic (1980). A characteristic of this formalism is that the applicability of default (inference) rules can only be verified in the future of the reasoning process. We describe an interpretation of default logic in temporal epistemic logic which makes this characteristic explicit. It is shown that this interpretation yields a semantics for default logic based on temporal epistemic models. A comparison between the various semantics for default logic will show the differences and similarities of these approaches and ours.

Compositional Verification of Multi-Agent Systems in Temporal Multi-Epistemic Logic

Compositional verification aims at managing the complexity of the verification process by exploiting compositionality of the system architecture. In this paper we explore the use of a temporal epistemic logic to formalize the process of verification of compositional multi-agent systems. The specification of a system, its properties and their proofs are of a compositional nature, and are formalized within a compositional temporal logic: Temporal Multi-Epistemic Logic. It is shown that compositional proofs are valid under certain conditions. Finally, the possibility of incorporating default persistence of information in a system, is explored.

Nonmonotonic reasoning with multiple belief sets

In complex reasoning tasks it is often the case that there is no single, correct set of conclusions given some initial information. Instead, there may be several such conclusion sets, which we will call belief sets. In the present paper we introduce nonmonotonic belief set operators and selection operators to formalize and to analyze structural aspects of reasoning with multiple belief sets. We define and investigate formal properties of belief set operators as absorption, congruence, supradeductivity and weak belief monotony. Furthermore, it is shown that for each belief set operator satisfying strong belief cumulativity there exists a largest monotonic logic underlying it, thus generalizing a result for nonmonotonic inference operations. Finally, we study abstract properties of selection operators connected to belief set operators, which are used to choose some of the possible belief sets.

Infinitary Default Logic for Specification of Nonmonotonic Reasoning

In this paper we study constructions leading to the formation of belief sets by agents. We focus on the situation when possible belief sets are built incrementally in stages. We call an infinite sequence of theories that represents such a process a reasoning trace. A set of reasoning traces describing all possible reasoning scenarios for the agent is called a reasoning frame. Default logic by Reiter is not powerful enough to represent reasoning frames. In the paper we introduce a generalization of default logic of Reiter by allowing infinite sets of justifications. We call this formalism infinitary default logic. In the main result of the paper we show that every reasoning frame can be represented by an infinitary default theory. A similar representability result for antichains of theories (belief frames) is also presented.

Nonmonotonic belief state frames and reasoning frames

In this paper five levels of specification of nonmonotonic reasoning are distinguished. The notions of semantical frame, belief state frame and reasoning frame are introduced and used as a semantical basis for the first three levels. Moreover, the semantical connections between the levels are formalized. It is shown that this general semantical framework is applicable for some well-known approaches such as preferential semantics and default logic.

Multi-Interpretation Operators and Approximate Classification

In this paper non-classical logical techniques are introduced to formalize the analysis of multi-interpretable observation information, in particular in approximate classification processes where information on attributes of an object is to be inferred on the basis of observable properties of the object. One frequently occurring reason for imperfect classification is when the available observations are insufficient to determine unique values for each of the attributes: a range of values may still be possible. Another often occurring reason for imperfect classification occurs when the observation information is contradictory: for some of the attributes not any value is possible. The combination of both types of imperfection is non-trivial from a standard logical perspective. To address this problem multi-interpretation operators and selection operators are introduced; these techniques generalize non-monotonic reasoning formalisms such as default logic. A specific multi-interpretation operator for approximate classification is introduced and formally analysed. On the basis of this approach, in co-operation with industry a system has been designed and implemented for the analysis of ecological monitoring information.

Specification of Nonmonotonic Reasoning.

ABSTRACT Two levels of description of nonmonotonic reasoning are distinguished. For these levels semantical formalizations are given. The first level is defined semantically by the notion of belief state frame, the second level by the notion of reasoning frame. We introduce two specification languages to describe nonmonotonic reasoning at each of the levels: (1) a specification language for level 1, with formal semantics based on belief state frames, (2) a fragment of infinitary temporal logic as a general specification language for level 2, with formal semantics based on reasoning frames. In our framework every level 2 description can be abstracted to level 1, and for every level 1 description there are level 2 descriptions which are a specialization of it.