Skip to main content
Log in

Propositional Plausible Logic: Introduction and Implementation

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Plausible Logic allows defeasible deduction with arbitrary propositions, and yet when sufficiently simplified it is very similar to the Defeasible Logics of Billington and Nute. This paper presents Plausible Logic, explains some of the ideas behind the definitions, applies Plausible Logic to an example, and proves a coherence result which indicates that Plausible Logic is well behaved. We also report the first complete implementation of propositional Plausible Logic. The implementation has a web interface which makes it available to researchers and students everywhere. The implementation is evaluated experimentally, and is shown to be capable of handling tens of thousands of rules and sufficiently many disjunctions for realistic problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Antoniou, G., Nonmonotonic Reasoning, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniou, G., ‘On the role of nonmonotonic representations in requirements engineering’, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 8:385–399, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Antoniou, G., D. Billington, G. Governatori, and M.J. Maher, ‘On the modelling and analysis of regulations’, in Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Wellington, New Zealand, December 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Antoniou, G., D. Billington, and M. J. Maher, ‘Normal forms for defeasible logic’,in Proceedings of the 1998 Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 160–174. MIT Press, 1998.

  5. Antoniou, G., D. Billington, and M. J. Maher, ‘On the analysis of regulations using defeasible rules’, in Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science. IEEE Press, 1999. Also to appear in Applied Intelligence.

  6. Antoniou, G., M. J. Maher, and D. Billington, ‘Defeasible logic versus logic programming without negation as failure’, Journal of Logic Programming 2000 (Accepted 4 June 1999).

  7. Billington, D., ‘Defeasible logic is stable’, Journal of Logic and Computation 3:379–400, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Billington, D., ‘Defeasible deduction with arbitrary propositions’, in Poster Proceedings of the 11th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3–14, 1998.

  9. Billington, D., K. De Coster, and D. Nute, ‘A modular translation from defeasible nets to defeasible logics’, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 2:151–177, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cholewinski, P. V.W. Marek, A. Mikitiuk, and M. Truszczyfinski, ‘Experimenting with nonmonotonic reasoning’, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming. MIT Press, 1995.

  11. Covington, M.A., ‘Defeasible logic on an embedded microcontroller’, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, 1997. Also to appear in Applied Intelligence.

  12. Covington, M.A., ‘Logical control of an elevator with defeasible logic’, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2000 (to appear).

  13. Covington, M.A., D. Nute, and A. Vellino, Prolog Programming in Depth, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dimopoulos, Y., and A. Kakas, ‘Logic programming without negation as failure’, in J. Maluszyfinski, editor, Proceeding of the 5th International Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 369–384, MIT Press, 1995.

  15. Gotlob, G., ‘Complexity results for nonmonotonic logics’, Journal of Logic and Computation 2:397–425, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grosof, B.N., ‘Prioritized conict handling for logic programs’, in J. Maluszyfinski, editor, Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium, pages 197–211, MIT Press, 1997.

  17. Hutton, G., ‘Higher-order functions for parsing’, J. Functional Programming 2:323–343, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Luqi and D. E. Cooke, ‘How to combine nonmonotonic logic and rapid prototyping to help maintain software’, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 5:89–118, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nute, D., ‘Defeasible reasoning: A philosophical analysis in prolog’, in J. H. Fetzer, editor, Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, pages 251–288, Kluwer Academic, 1988.

  20. Nute, D., ‘A decidable quantified defeasible logic’, in D. Prawitz, B. Skyrms, and D. Weasterstahl, editors, Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, volume IX, pages 263–284, Elsevier Science B. V., 1994.

  21. Nute, D., ‘Defeasible logic’, in D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 3, pages 353–395, Oxford University Press, 1994.

  22. Zowghi, D., A.K. Ghose, and P. Peppas, ‘A framework for reasoning about requirements evolution’, in Proceedings of the Fourth Paci_c Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 1114 of LNAI, pages 157–168, Springer, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Billington, D., Rock, A. Propositional Plausible Logic: Introduction and Implementation. Studia Logica 67, 243–269 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010551204574

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010551204574

Navigation