Skip to main content
Log in

On nonmonotonic reasoning with the method of sweeping presumptions

  • General Article
  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reasoning almost always occurs in the face of incomplete information. Such reasoning is nonmonotonic in the sense that conclusions drawn may later be withdrawn when additional information is obtained. There is an active literature on the problem of modeling such nonmonotonic reasoning, yet no category of method-let alone a single method-has been broadly accepted as the right approach. This paper introduces a new method, called sweeping presumptions, for modeling nonmonotonic reasoning. The main goal of the paper is to provide an example-driven, nontechnical introduction to the method of sweeping presumptions, and thereby to make it plausible that sweeping presumptions can usefully be applied to the problems of nonmonotonic reasoning. The paper discusses a representative sample of examples that have appeared in the literature on nonmonotonic reasoning, and discusses them from the point of view of sweeping presumptions.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Audi, R. (1988), Belief, Justification, and Knowledge, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Causey, R. L. (1991), ‘EVID: A System for Interactive Defeasible Reasoning’, forthcoming in Decision Support Systems.

  • Elliott, J. R. and Kimbrough, S. O. (1990), ‘A Graph-Based Theorem Prover for Sentence Logic Model Management’, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Decision Sciences, working paper 90-01-01.

  • Genesereth, M. R. and NilssonN. J. (1987). Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, M. L. (1987), ‘Introduction’, in M. L.Ginsberg (ed.), Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks, S. and Mc Dermott, D. (1986), ‘Default Reasoning, Non-monotonic Logics, and the Frame Problem’, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 328–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks, S. and Mc Dermott, D. (1987), ‘Default Logic and Temporal Projection’, Artificial Intelligence 33, pp. 379–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (1973), Thought, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (1986), Change in View, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, Kimbrough, S. O. (1986), ‘A Graph Representation for Management of Logic Models’, Decision Support Systems 2, 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrough, S. O. (1991), ‘An introduction to the Method of Sweeping Presumptions for Modeling Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, in J. F.NunamakerJr. (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. III. DSS and Knowledge-Based Systems and Collaboration Technology Tracks, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 339–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrough, S. O. and AdamsF. (1988), ‘Why Nonmonotonic Logic?’, Decision Support Systems 4, pp. 111–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg, H., Loui, R., and Carlson, G. (eds.) (1990), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lifschitz, V. (1989), ‘Benchmark Problems for Formal Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, in M.Reinfrank, J.deKleer, M. L.Ginsberg, and E.Sandewell (eds.), Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 202–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. (1989), ‘Benchmark Problems for Nonmonotonic Systems’, distributed at the Workshop on Defeasible Reasoning with Specificity and Multiple Inheritance, St. Louis, MO, April 7–9, 1989.

  • Mc Dermott, D. and Doyle, J. (1980), ‘Nonmonotonic Logic I’, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 41–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nute, D. (1988), ‘Defeasible Reasoning and Decision Support Systems’, Decision Support Systems 4, pp. 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nute, D. (1989), ‘Review of Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Philosophical Psychology 2, pp. 351–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nute, D. (1990), ‘Defeasible Logic and the Frame Problem’, in H.Kyburg, R.Loui, and G.Carlson (ed.), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nute, D. and Lewis, M. (1986), ‘d-Prolog: A User's Manual’, ACMC Research Report 01-0017, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (1988), Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. L. (1986), Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. L. (1987), ‘Defeasible Reasoning’, Cognitive Science 11, pp. 481–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. L. (1989), How to Build a Person: A Prolegomenon, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O. (1953), ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, in W. V. O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 20–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. (1980), ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 81–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, S. F. (1991), ‘A General Numerical Approach to the Benchmark Problems in Defeasible Reasoning’, in J. F.NunamakerJr. (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. III, DSS and Knowledge-Based Systems and Collaboration Technology Tracks, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 329–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, G. and Pearl, J. (eds.) (1990), Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shastri, L. (1988), Semantics Networks: An Evidential Formalization and Its Connectionist Realization, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958), The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touretzky, D. S. (1986), The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touretzky, D. S., Horty, J. F., and Thomason, R. H. (1987), ‘A Clash of Intuitions: The Current State of Nonmonotonic Multiple Inheritance Systems’, IJCAI-10, pp. 476–482.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kimbrough, S.O., Hua, H. On nonmonotonic reasoning with the method of sweeping presumptions. Minds and Machines 1, 393–416 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352917

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352917

Key words

Navigation