Description Logics (DLs) are widely applied in AI and database systems. However, like other classical logics, they cannot adequately handle defeasible information. Building on the notion of rational closure - a form of defeasible reasoning originally developed for the propositional setting and later adapted to DLs - we extend this approach by incorporating two further forms of defeasible reasoning: System W and lexicographic closure. Both are well-established entailment relations in the propositional case and are known to satisfy several desirable properties. In this paper, we provide model-theoretic definitions of these extensions for DLs, analyze their behaviour by relating them to their propositional counterparts, and present algorithms for their computation.

Propositional Typicality Logic (PTL) extends propositional logic with a connective • expressing the most typical (alias normal or conventional) situations in which a given sentence holds. As such, it generalises e.g.~preferential logics that formalise reasoning with conditionals such as ``birds typically fly''. In this paper, we study revision of sets of PTL-sentences. We first show why it is necessary to extend the PTL-language with a possibility operator, and then define the revision of PTL-sentences syntactically and characterise it semantically. We show that this allows us to represent a wide variety of existing revision methods, such as propositional revision and revision of epistemic states. Furthermore, we provide several examples showing why our approach is innovative. In more detail, we study revision of a set of conditionals under preferential closure, and the addition and contraction of possible worlds from an epistemic state.

We extend the expressivity of classical conditional reasoning by introducing context as a new parameter. The enriched conditional logic generalises the defeasible setting in the style of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor, and allows for a more refined representation of an agent’s epistemic state, distinguishing, for example, between expectations and counterfactuals. In this paper we introduce the language for the enriched logic, and define an appropriate semantic framework for it. We analyse which properties generally associated with conditional reasoning are still satisfied by the new semantic framework, provide an appropriate representation result, and define an entailment relation based on Lehmann and Magidor’s notion of Rational Closure.

The past 25 years have seen many attempts to introduce defeasible-reasoning capabilities into a description logic setting. Many, if not most, of these attempts are based on preferential extensions of description logics, with a significant number of these, in turn, following the so-called KLM approach to defeasible reasoning initially advocated for propositional logic by Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor. Each of these attempts has its own aim of investigating particular constructions and variants of the (KLM-style) preferential approach. Here our aim is to provide a comprehensive study of the formal foundations of preferential defeasible reasoning for description logics in the KLM tradition. We start by investigating a notion ofdefeasible subsumptionin the spirit of defeasible conditionals as studied by Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor in the propositional case. In particular, we consider a natural and intuitive semantics for defeasible subsumption, and we investigate KLM-style syntactic properties for bothpreferentialandrationalsubsumption. Our contribution includes two representation results linking our semantic constructions to the set of preferential and rational properties considered. Besides showing that our semantics is appropriate, these results pave the way for more effective decision procedures for defeasible reasoning in description logics. Indeed, we also analyse the problem of non-monotonic reasoning in description logics at the level ofentailmentand present an algorithm for the computation ofrational closureof a defeasible knowledge base. Importantly, our algorithm relies completely on classical entailment and shows that the computational complexity of reasoning over defeasible knowledge bases is no worse than that of reasoning in the underlying classical DLALC.

We present a formal framework for modelling belief change within a nonmonotonic reasoning system. Belief change and non-monotonic reasoning are two areas that are formally closely related, with recent attention being paid towards the analysis of belief change within a non-monotonic environment. In this paper we consider the classical AGM belief change operators, contraction and revision, applied to a defeasible setting in the style of Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor. The investigation leads us to the consideration of the problem of iterated change, generalising the classical work of Darwiche and Pearl. We characterise a family of operators for iterated revision, followed by an analogous characterisation of operators for iterated contraction. We start considering belief change operators aimed at preserving logical consistency, and then characterise analogous operators aimed at the preservation of coherence—an important notion within the field of logic-based ontologies.

In this paper we introduce and investigate a very basic semantics for conditionals that can be used to define a broad class of conditional reasoning. We show that it encompasses the most popular kinds of conditional reasoning developed in logic-based KR. It turns out that the semantics we propose is appropriate for a structural analysis of those conditionals that do not satisfy the property of Right Weakening. We show that it can be used for the further development of an analysis of the notion of relevance in conditional reasoning.

Belief change and non-monotonic reasoning are usually viewed as two sides of the same coin, with results showing that one can formally be defined in terms of the other. In this paper we show that it also makes sense to analyse belief change within a (preferential) non-monotonic framework. We consider belief change operators in a non-monotonic propositional setting with a view towards preserving consistency. We show that the results obtained can also be applied to the preservation of coherence— an important notion within the field of logic-based ontologies. We adopt the AGM approach to belief change and show that standard AGM can be adapted to a preferential non-monotonic framework, with the definition of expansion, contraction, and revision operators, and corresponding representation results.

We propose a method for an agent to revise its incomplete probabilistic beliefs when a new piece of propositional information is observed. In this work, an agent's beliefs are represented by a set of probabilistic formulae – a belief base. The method involves determining a representative set of ‘boundary’ probability distributions consistent with the current belief base, revising each of these probability distributions and then translating the revised information into a new belief base. We use a version of Lewis Imaging as the revision operation. The correctness of the approach is proved. An analysis of the approach is done against six rationality postulates. The expressivity of the belief bases under consideration are rather restricted, but has some applications. We also discuss methods of belief base revision employing the notion of optimum entropy, and point out some of the benefits and difficulties in those methods. Both the boundary distribution method and the optimum entropy methods are reasonable, yet yield different results.

Defeasible inheritance networks are a non-monotonic framework that deals with hierarchical knowledge. On the other hand, rational closure is acknowledged as a landmark of the preferential approach to non-monotonic reasoning. We will combine these two approaches and define a new non-monotonic closure operation for propositional knowledge bases that combines the advantages of both. Then we redefine such a procedure for Description Logics (DLs), a family of logics well-suited to model structured information. In both cases we will provide a simple reasoning method that is built on top of the classical entailment relation and, thus, is amenable of an implementation based on existing reasoners. Eventually, we evaluate our approach on well-known landmark test examples.

Defeasible inheritance networks are a non-monotonic framework dealing with hierarchical knowledge. On the other hand, rational closure, a main representative of the preferential approach, is acknowledged as a landmark. We will combine these two approaches and define a new non-monotonic closure operation for propositional knowledge bases that combines the advantages of both. Then we redefine such a procedure for Description Logics, a family of logics well-suited to model structured information. In both cases we will provide a simple reasoning method that is build on top of the classical entailment relation.