Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics最新文献_第3页

An elementary belief function logic 一个初等信念函数逻辑

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-24 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2244366

Didier Dubois, Lluis Godo, Henri Prade

引用次数: 1

Belief revision and incongruity: is it a joke?* 信念修正与不协调:这是一个笑话吗?＊

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-21 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2244379

Florence Dupin de Saint Cyr-Bannay, H. Prade

引用次数: 0

An empirical and axiomatic comparison of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation 抽象论证中基于排序语义的经验与公理比较

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-19 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2246863

Elise Bonzon, Jérôme Delobelle, S. Konieczny, N. Maudet

引用次数: 0

Sequent-type rejection systems for finite-valued non-deterministic logics 有限值非确定性逻辑的序列型拒绝系统

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-17 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2244367

Martin Gius, H. Tompits

{"title":"Sequent-type rejection systems for finite-valued non-deterministic logics","authors":"Martin Gius, H. Tompits","doi":"10.1080/11663081.2023.2244367","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2023.2244367","url":null,"abstract":"A rejection system, also referred to as a complementary calculus, is a proof system axiomatising the invalid formulas of a logic, in contrast to traditional calculi which axiomatise the valid ones. Rejection systems therefore introduce a purely syntactic way of determining non-validity without having to consider countermodels, which can be useful in procedures for automated deduction and proof search. Rejection calculi have first been formally introduced by Łukasiewicz in the context of Aristotelian syllogistic and subsequently rejection systems for many well-known logics have been proposed. In this paper, we deal with rejection systems for so-called non-deterministic finite-valued logics, a special case of non-deterministic many-valued logics which were introduced by Avron and Lev as a generalisation of traditional many-valued logics. More specifically, we introduce a systematic method for constructing sequent-style rejection systems for any given non-deterministic finite-valued logic. Furthermore, as special instances of our method, we provide concrete calculi for specific paraconsistent logics which can be characterised in terms of non-deterministic two- and three-valued semantics, respectively.","PeriodicalId":38573,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics","volume":"4 1","pages":"606 - 640"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79132324","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

When is argumentation deductive? 什么时候论证是演绎的?

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-16 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2246862

H. Prakken

引用次数: 0

Metric dynamic equilibrium logic 度量动态平衡逻辑

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-14 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2244365

Arvid Becker, Pedro Cabalar, Martín Diéguez, L. Fariñas del Cerro, Torsten Schaub, Anna Schuhmann

引用次数: 0

RAFDivider: a distributed algorithm for computing semantics in higher-order abstract argumentation frameworks RAFDivider:用于计算高阶抽象论证框架中语义的分布式算法

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-13 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2244715

S. Doutre, M. Lagasquie-Schiex

引用次数: 0

Forecasting with jury-based probabilistic argumentation 基于陪审团的概率论证预测

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-11 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2244716

Francesca Toni, Antonio Rago, K. Čyras

引用次数: 0

Selecting accepted assertions in partially ordered inconsistent DL-Lite knowledge bases 在部分顺序不一致的DL-Lite知识库中选择可接受的断言

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-11 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2244741

Sihem Belabbes, S. Benferhat

{"title":"Selecting accepted assertions in partially ordered inconsistent DL-Lite knowledge bases","authors":"Sihem Belabbes, S. Benferhat","doi":"10.1080/11663081.2023.2244741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2023.2244741","url":null,"abstract":"The problem of inconsistency handling in knowledge bases has received considerable research attention in several settings and has met many applications. Inconsistency usually stems from the fact that the information available for reasoning, query answering and decision-making tasks is obtained from different, scattered and potentially unreliable information sources. Performing these tasks is often computationally expensive, especially for knowledge bases in which the data is endowed with preferences and/or uncertainty. In the context of formal ontologies, enriching the assertions (i.e. the data pieces) with conceptual knowledge makes the query answering task harder computationally. Tractable results have been successfully established for the lightweight languages of the DL-Lite family. In this paper, we present two tractable methods for handling inconsistency in partially ordered lightweight ontologies. In essence, both methods are inspired from the well-known Intersection of ABox Repair (IAR) semantics, which proceeds by replacing the initial inconsistent knowledge base with the intersection of all of its maximally consistent sub-bases. The first method assumes a partial preorder over the knowledge base and identifies the accepted assertions, called ‘elected’, in polynomial time in data complexity. The second method captures uncertainty quantitatively in the framework of possibility theory and identifies the so-called ‘π-accepted’ assertions, also in polynomial time in data complexity. However, both characterisations require the conflict set to be readily available. This constitutes a serious limitation in frameworks and applications where the conflict set cannot be exhibited efficiently. In this paper, we propose a new and equivalent characterisation for each method. We show that the elected assertions and also the π-accepted assertions can be identified in polynomial time in the size of the dataset for lightweight ontologies.","PeriodicalId":38573,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics","volume":"13 1","pages":"561 - 581"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85408536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Postulate satisfaction for inconsistency measures in monotonic logics and databases 假设在单调逻辑和数据库中不一致度量的满足

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Pub Date : 2023-08-11 DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2023.2244359

J. Grant

{"title":"Postulate satisfaction for inconsistency measures in monotonic logics and databases","authors":"J. Grant","doi":"10.1080/11663081.2023.2244359","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2023.2244359","url":null,"abstract":"Inconsistency measures for propositional logic have been investigated in great detail for the past 20 years. Many such measures have been proposed. Rationality postulates, conditions about inconsistency measures, were defined to distinguish the measures that satisfy intuitively desirable properties. The satisfaction or violation of various postulates is known for many inconsistency measures. But propositional logic has many limitations and in many applications more complex logics are appropriate. We consider monotonic extensions of propositional logic such as modal, temporal, description, and first-order logic. We focus on a class of inconsistency measures whose computation depends only on the structure of the minimal inconsistent subsets. The definition of these inconsistency measures is the same for these logics as for propositional logic. The situation is similar for the rationality postulates. This paper studies the connection between the satisfaction or violation of the postulates for propositional logic and monotonic extensions of propositional logic. We show that the results are the same for the most prominent postulates. Additionally, we consider the same question for databases. We show that although the setting is substantially different from these logics, in general the results are the same.","PeriodicalId":38573,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics","volume":"178 1","pages":"537 - 560"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77806898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0