Standpoint Logics with Defeasible Beliefs

In this paper, we integrate the defeasible logic of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM) with the standpoint logic framework of Gómez Álvarez and Rudolph. This is done with the goal of formally expressing knowledge taking into account multiple (possibly contradicting) viewpoints, which in turn may hold defeasible beliefs. In doing so, we utilise Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logics (DRSL), introduced by Leisegang et al. Our work expands on previous work by providing a foundational representation result for DRSL semantics and systematically lifting several well-known entailment relations from the propositional case to the standpoint-enhanced setting. In particular, we characterise the semantics for DRSL through a set of KLM-style postulates adapted for the standpoints case. We furthermore provide a means to lift preferential entailment, and the class of entailment relations based on single ranking functions from the purely propositional to the standpoint-enhanced context, including rational and lexicographic closure. We show this can be done equivalently through semantic and algorithmic means. Furthermore, we show that, for each considered form of entailment, the complexity class of entailment checking does not change when moving from propositional KLM to DRSL.

Towards Non-Monotonic Entailment in Propositional Defeasible Standpoint Logic

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.

Semantic Bridges Between First Order c-Representations and Cost-Based Semantics: An Initial Perspective

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

Towards Propositional KLM-Style Defeasible Standpoint Logics

The KLM approach to defeasible reasoning introduces a weakened form of implication into classical logic. This allows one to incorporate exceptions to general rules into a logical system, and for old conclusions to be withdrawn upon learning new contradictory information. Standpoint logics are a group of logics, introduced to the field of Knowledge Representation in the last 5 years, which allow for multiple viewpoints to be integrated into the same ontology, even when certain viewpoints may hold contradicting beliefs. In this paper, we aim to integrate standpoints into KLM propositional logic in a restricted setting. We introduce the logical system of Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logic (DRSL) and define its syntax and semantics. Specifically, we integrate ranked interpretations and standpoint structures, which provide the semantics for propositional KLM and propositional standpoint logic respectively, in order to introduce ranked standpoint structures for DRSL. Moreover, we extend the non-monotonic entailment relation of rational closure from the propositional KLM case to the DRSL case. The main contribution of this paper is to characterize rational closure for DRSL both algorithmically and semantically, showing that rational closure can be characterized through a single representative ranked standpoint structure. Finally, we conclude that the semantic and algorithmic characterizations of rational closure are equivalent, and that entailment-checking for DRSL under rational closure is in the same complexity class as entailment-checking for propositional KLM.

Non-monotonic Extensions to Formal Concept Analysis via Object Preferences

Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) is an approach to creating a conceptual hierarchy in which a \textit{concept lattice} is generated from a \textit{formal context}. That is, a triple consisting of a set of objects, $G$, a set of attributes, $M$, and an incidence relation $I$ on $G \times M$. A \textit{concept} is then modelled as a pair consisting of a set of objects (the \textit{extent}), and a set of shared attributes (the \textit{intent}). Implications in FCA describe how one set of attributes follows from another. The semantics of these implications closely resemble that of logical consequence in classical logic. In that sense, it describes a monotonic conditional. The contributions of this paper are two-fold. First, we introduce a non-monotonic conditional between sets of attributes, which assumes a preference over the set of objects. We show that this conditional gives rise to a consequence relation that is consistent with the postulates for non-monotonicty proposed by Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor (commonly referred to as the KLM postulates). We argue that our contribution establishes a strong characterisation of non-monotonicity in FCA. Typical concepts represent concepts where the intent aligns with expectations from the extent, allowing for an exception-tolerant view of concepts. To this end, we show that the set of all typical concepts is a meet semi-lattice of the original concept lattice. This notion of typical concepts is a further introduction of KLM-style typicality into FCA, and is foundational towards developing an algebraic structure representing a concept lattice of prototypical concepts.