arXiv subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Michael J. Maher.
The class of defeasible logics is only vaguely defined -- it is defined by a few exemplars and the general idea of efficient reasoning with defeasible rules. The recent definition of the defeasible logic $DL(\partial_{||})$ introduced new features to such logics, which have repercussions that we explore. In particular, we define a class of logics that accommodates the new logic while retaining the traditional properties of defeasible logics.
Defeasible rules are used in providing computable representations of legal documents and, more recently, have been suggested as a basis for explainable AI. Such applications draw attention to the scalability of implementations. The defeasible logic $DL(\partial_{||})$ was introduced as a more scalable alternative to $DL(\partial)$, which is better known. In this paper we consider the use of (implementations of) $DL(\partial_{||})$ as a computational aid to computing conclusions in $DL(\partial)$ and other defeasible logics, rather than as an alternative to $DL(\partial)$. We identify conditions under which $DL(\partial_{||})$ can be substituted for $DL(\partial)$ with no change to the conclusions drawn, and conditions under which $DL(\partial_{||})$ can be used to draw some valid conclusions, leaving the remainder to be drawn by $DL(\partial)$.
We address the problem of compiling defeasible theories to Datalog$^\neg$ programs. We prove the correctness of this compilation, for the defeasible logic $DL(\partial_{||})$, but the techniques we use apply to many other defeasible logics. Structural properties of $DL(\partial_{||})$ are identified that support efficient implementation and/or approximation of the conclusions of defeasible theories in the logic, compared with other defeasible logics. We also use previously well-studied structural properties of logic programs to adapt to incomplete Datalog$^\neg$ implementations.
(Maher 2012) introduced an approach for relative expressiveness of defeasible logics, and two notions of relative expressiveness were investigated. Using the first of these definitions of relative expressiveness, we show that all the defeasible logics in the DL framework are equally expressive under this formulation of relative expressiveness. The second formulation of relative expressiveness is stronger than the first. However, we show that logics incorporating individual defeat are equally expressive as the corresponding logics with team defeat. Thus the only differences in expressiveness of logics in DL arise from differences in how ambiguity is handled. This completes the study of relative expressiveness in DL begun in \cite{Maher12}.
In this note, we use Kunen's notion of a signing to establish two theorems about the well-founded semantics of logic programs, in the case where we are interested in only (say) the positive literals of a predicate $p$ that are consequences of the program. The first theorem identifies a class of programs for which the well-founded and Fitting semantics coincide for the positive part of $p$. The second theorem shows that if a program has a signing then computing the positive part of $p$ under the well-founded semantics requires the computation of only one part of each predicate. This theorem suggests an analysis for query-answering under the well-founded semantics. In the process of proving these results, we use an alternative formulation of the well-founded semantics of logic programs, which might be of independent interest. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)
Strategic argumentation provides a simple model of disputation and negotiation among agents. Although agents might be expected to act in our best interests, there is little that enforces such behaviour. (Maher, 2016) introduced a model of corruption and resistance to corruption within strategic argumentation. In this paper we identify corrupt behaviours that are not detected in that formulation. We strengthen the model to detect such behaviours, and show that, under the strengthened model, all the strategic aims in (Maher, 2016) are resistant to corruption.
This note points out a lemma on closures of monotonic increasing functions and shows how it is applicable to decomposition and modularity for semantics defined as the least fixedpoint of some monotonic function. In particular it applies to numerous semantics of logic programs. An appendix addresses the fixedpoints of (possibly non-monotonic) functions that are sandwiched between functions with the same fixedpoints.
Recent technological advances have led to unprecedented amounts of generated data that originate from the Web, sensor networks and social media. Analytics in terms of defeasible reasoning - for example for decision making - could provide richer knowledge of the underlying domain. Traditionally, defeasible reasoning has focused on complex knowledge structures over small to medium amounts of data, but recent research efforts have attempted to parallelize the reasoning process over theories with large numbers of facts. Such work has shown that traditional defeasible logics come with overheads that limit scalability. In this work, we design a new logic for defeasible reasoning, thus ensuring scalability by design. We establish several properties of the logic, including its relation to existing defeasible logics. Our experimental results indicate that our approach is indeed scalable and defeasible reasoning can be applied to billions of facts.
Defeasible logics provide several linguistic features to support the expression of defeasible knowledge. There is also a wide variety of such logics, expressing different intuitions about defeasible reasoning. However, the logics can only combine in trivial ways. This limits their usefulness in contexts where different intuitions are at play in different aspects of a problem. In particular, in some legal settings, different actors have different burdens of proof, which might be expressed as reasoning in different defeasible logics. In this paper, we introduce annotated defeasible logic as a flexible formalism permitting multiple forms of defeasibility, and establish some properties of the formalism. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.
Open forms of global constraints allow the addition of new variables to an argument during the execution of a constraint program. Such forms are needed for difficult constraint programming problems where problem construction and problem solving are interleaved, and fit naturally within constraint logic programming. However, in general, filtering that is sound for a global constraint can be unsound when the constraint is open. This paper provides a simple characterization, called contractibility, of the constraints where filtering remains sound when the constraint is open. With this characterization we can easily determine whether a constraint has this property or not. In the latter case, we can use it to derive a contractible approximation to the constraint. We demonstrate this work on both hard and soft constraints. In the process, we formulate two general classes of soft constraints.
We propose new filtering algorithms for the SEQUENCE constraint and some extensions of the SEQUENCE constraint based on network flows. We enforce domain consistency on the SEQUENCE constraint in $O(n^2)$ time down a branch of the search tree. This improves upon the best existing domain consistency algorithm by a factor of $O(\log n)$. The flows used in these algorithms are derived from a linear program. Some of them differ from the flows used to propagate global constraints like GCC since the domains of the variables are encoded as costs on the edges rather than capacities. Such flows are efficient for maintaining bounds consistency over large domains and may be useful for other global constraints.
Defeasible reasoning is a simple but efficient approach to nonmonotonic reasoning that has recently attracted considerable interest and that has found various applications. Defeasible logic and its variants are an important family of defeasible reasoning methods. So far no relationship has been established between defeasible logic and mainstream nonmonotonic reasoning approaches. In this paper we establish close links to known semantics of logic programs. In particular, we give a translation of a defeasible theory D into a meta-program P(D). We show that under a condition of decisiveness, the defeasible consequences of D correspond exactly to the sceptical conclusions of P(D) under the stable model semantics. Without decisiveness, the result holds only in one direction (all defeasible consequences of D are included in all stable models of P(D)). If we wish a complete embedding for the general case, we need to use the Kunen semantics of P(D), instead.
Defeasible logic is a rule-based nonmonotonic logic, with both strict and defeasible rules, and a priority relation on rules. We show that inference in the propositional form of the logic can be performed in linear time. This contrasts markedly with most other propositional nonmonotonic logics, in which inference is intractable.
Defeasible logic is an efficient logic for defeasible reasoning. It is defined through a proof theory and, until now, has had no model theory. In this paper a model-theoretic semantics is given for defeasible logic. The logic is sound and complete with respect to the semantics. We also briefly outline how this approach extends to a wide range of defeasible logics.