=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3739/invited-2
|storemode=property
|title=Ranking-based Conditional Semantics for Defeasible Subsumptions (Abstract of Invited Talk)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3739/invited-2.pdf
|volume=Vol-3739
|authors=Gabriele Kern-Isberner
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/dlog/Kern-Isberner24
}}
==Ranking-based Conditional Semantics for Defeasible Subsumptions (Abstract of Invited Talk)==
<pdf width="1500px">https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3739/invited-2.pdf</pdf>
<pre>
                                Ranking-based Conditional Semantics for
                                Defeasible Subsumptions (Extended Abstract)
                                Gabriele Kern-Isberner1
                                1
                                    TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany


                                                                         Abstract
                                                                         Defeasible subsumptions are kind of default rules aka conditionals, i.e., rules with exceptions, or rules
                                                                         that plausibly hold. Such rules have been explored in the area of nonmonotonic reasoning since the
                                                                         80s of the past century, and a crucial insight from these studies is that semantically, it needs qualitative
                                                                         relations between possible worlds to provide solid logical semantics for default rules. However, most
                                                                         approaches here have focused on propositional logic only.
                                                                              In this talk, I present a semantics for first-order conditionals that mimicks commonsense reasoning
                                                                         well and is based on Spohn’s ranking functions which are particularly popular in the fields of non-
                                                                         monotonic reasoning and belief revision. So-called c-representations construct a ranking model from a
                                                                         first-order conditional belief base that yields high-quality nonmonotonic inferences. As a special feature
                                                                         of this approach, the qualitative relations between possible worlds which are mandatory to implement
                                                                         defeasible inferences are elaborated from the conditionals in the belief base, no external relations, e.g.,
                                                                         expressing typicality among individuals need to be specified. This approach can also be applied to
                                                                         defeasible subsumptions in description logics, taking information from both (defeasible) TBox and ABox
                                                                         into account.




                                1. Introduction and Overview
                                Rules in the form of conditional statements “If 𝐴 then (usually) 𝐵” (sometimes equipped with a
                                quantitative degree) are basic to human reasoning and also to logics in Artificial Intelligence. In
                                cognitive sciences, four inference rules have been considered in many studies to find out how
                                humans draw inferences from a given conditional statement and a respective fact: Modus Ponens
                                (MP), that from the statement and 𝐴 it follows that 𝐵, and Modus Tollens (MT), that from the
                                statement and ¬𝐵 it follows that ¬𝐴. MP and MT are classically valid, but also other, classically
                                invalid rules can be observed frequently: Affirmation of the Consequent (AC), stating that from
                                the statement and 𝐵 it follows that 𝐴 and, finally, Denial of the Antecedent (DA), stating that
                                from the statement and ¬𝐴 it follows that ¬𝐵. MP and MT are deemed to be rational, while
                                AC and DA are interpreted as failures of rational reasoning.
                                   In this talk, we first show that well-known approaches to commonsense (nonmonotonic)
                                logics in the field of knowledge representation can resolve “irrational” incompatibilities with
                                logic in most cases. More precisely, by recalling results from [1, 2] we argue that the observed
                                “irrationality” is due to taking classical logic as a (non-fitting) standard, and that the usage of
                                so-called preferential models [3, 4] can explain away nearly all observed inconsistencies. The

                                           DL 2024: 37th International Workshop on Description Logics, June 18–21, 2024, Bergen, Norway
                                                                       © 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
                                    CEUR
                                    Workshop
                                    Proceedings
                                                  http://ceur-ws.org
                                                  ISSN 1613-0073
                                                                       CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)




CEUR
                  ceur-ws.org
Workshop      ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
basic technical methodologies for implementing (inductive) preferential models are conditionals
(𝐵|𝐴) allowing for a non-classical, three-valued interpretation of conditional statements, total
preorders on possible worlds, and ranking functions [5, 6]. However, preferential models have
been mostly considered for propositional logics. Here, we make use of the first-order conditional
logic introduced in [7] to present first steps towards an interpretation of defeasible subsumptions
in description logics which is thoroughly based on conditionals and ranking functions.
   This talk reports on (ongoing) joint work with Christian Eichhorn, Alexander Hahn, Marco
Ragni, Lars-Phillip Spiegel, and Matthias Thimm.


2. Plausible Reasoning with Preorders and Ranking Functions
First, we consider a propositional language L composed from a finite set Σ of atoms as usual,
with Ω being the set of possible worlds resp. interpretations over Σ. We introduce the binary
operator | to obtain the set (L|L) of conditionals written as (𝐵|𝐴). Conditionals are three-valued
logical entities according to [8].
   For nonmonotonic inference and the modeling of epistemic states, total preorders ≼ on
possible worlds expressing plausibility are of crucial importance. If 𝜔1 ≼ 𝜔2 , 𝜔1 is deemed as at
least as plausible as 𝜔2 . Such a preorder can be lifted to the level of formulas by stating that
𝐴 ≼ 𝐵 if for each model of 𝐵, there is a model of 𝐴 that is at least as plausible. Nonmonotonic
inference can then be easily realized as a form of preferential entailment of high logical quality
[4]: 𝐴|∼≺ 𝐵 if and only if 𝐴𝐵 ≺ 𝐴𝐵, i.e., from 𝐴, 𝐵 can be plausibly inferred if in the context of
𝐴, 𝐵 is more plausible than 𝐵. Hence total preorders provide convenient epistemic structures
for plausible reasoning, and epistemic states Ψ can be represented by such a total preorder
≼Ψ . Conditionals can then be integrated smoothly into this reasoning framework by defining
Ψ |= (𝐵|𝐴) if and only if 𝐴|∼≺ 𝐵, i.e., conditionals encode nonmonotonic inferences on the
object level.
   Ordinal conditional functions (OCF, [5, 6], also called ranking functions, are functions 𝜅 :
Ω → N0 ∪ {∞} with 𝜅−1 (0) ̸= ∅ that assign to each world 𝜔 an implausibility rank 𝜅(𝜔),
providing specific implementations of total preorders. The rank of a formula 𝐴 ∈ L is defined
as 𝜅(𝐴) = min{𝜅(𝜔)|𝜔 |= 𝐴}. A ranking function accepts a conditional (𝐵|𝐴) (in symbols
𝜅 |= (𝐵|𝐴)) if 𝜅(𝐴𝐵) < 𝜅(𝐴𝐵), in accordance with preferential inference as defined above.


3. Inference patterns
Previous research in cognitive sciences discussed whether each of the inference rules MP,
MT (both classically valid), and AC, DA (both classically invalid) is respectively applied by
investigating if participants or any (cognitive) system draw a specific inference. In [1], we
go beyond that in two respects: first, we formalize what it means that it is plausible to draw
conclusions according to these rules, and secondly, we focus on the combination of these
inference rules in a specific experiment which reflects the global inference behavior typical for
the respective experiment by introducing inference patterns.

Definition 1 (Inference Pattern). An inference pattern 𝜚 is a 4-tuple of inference rules that for
each inference rule MP, MT, AC, and DA indicates whether the rule is used (positive rule, e.g., MP)
or not used (negated rule, e.g., ¬MP) in an inference scenario. The set of all 16 inference patterns is
called ℛ.

   To draw plausible inferences with respect to an inference rule, a plausibility preorder ≼ has
to be defined on the set of worlds. Each inference pattern 𝜚 ∈ ℛ imposes a set of plausibility
constraints which is called 𝒞(𝜚). 𝒞(𝜚) is satisfiable if and only if there is a total preorder ≼ that
satisfies all constraints in 𝒞(𝜚). In this case, we call the inference pattern rational. Otherwise,
the inference pattern is irrational. Inspecting all 𝜚 ∈ ℛ we obtain that only two patterns,
namely (MP, ¬MT, ¬AC, DA) and (¬MP, MT, AC, ¬DA), are irrational because the imposed
constraints result in cyclic relations. In over 60 empirical studies investigated so far [2], hardly
any irrational patterns could be found (less than 2%).


4. Ranking-Based Semantics of First-Order Conditionals
Now we briefly sketch how the ranking-based semantics for propositional conditionals can be
lifted to first-order conditionals according to [7]. From this, ranking-based interpretations of
defeasible subsumptions as open conditionals can be easily obtained.
   Let Σ be a first-order signature consisting of a finite set of predicates 𝑃Σ and a finite set of
constant symbols 𝑈 = 𝑈Σ but without function symbols of arity > 0. Let ℒΣ be the first-order
language that allows no nested quantification, i.e., all quantified formulas are either universal
or existential formulas. ℒΣ is extended by a conditional operator “ | ” to a conditional language
(ℒΣ | ℒΣ ) containing first-order conditionals (𝐵 | 𝐴) with 𝐴, 𝐵 ∈ ℒΣ , and (universally or
existentially) quantified conditionals ∀𝑥                   ⃗ (𝐵 | 𝐴). When writing (𝐵(𝑥
                                                ⃗ (𝐵 | 𝐴), ∃𝑥                            ⃗ ) | 𝐴(𝑥 ⃗ )), we
assume ⃗𝑥 to contain all free variables occurring in either 𝐴 or 𝐵. Conditionals cannot be nested.
   A first-order knowledge base 𝒦ℬ = ⟨ℱ, ℛ⟩ consists of a first-order conditional knowledge
base ℛ, together with a set ℱ of closed formulas from ℒΣ , called facts. For an open conditional
(𝐵(𝑥 ⃗ ) | 𝐴(𝑥 ⃗ )) ∈ (ℒΣ | ℒΣ ) let ℋ(𝐵(𝑥⃗) | 𝐴(𝑥⃗)) denote the set of all constant vectors ⃗𝑎 used for
                                                                                                         |𝑥
                                                                                                          ⃗|
proper groundings of (𝐵(𝑥               ⃗ )) from the Herbrand universe ℋΣ , i. e. ℋ(𝐵(𝑥⃗) | 𝐴(𝑥⃗)) = 𝑈Σ
                                ⃗ ) | 𝐴(𝑥
where |𝑥   ⃗ | is the length of ⃗𝑥.
   Just as in the propositional case, a ranking function 𝜅 on ΩΣ is a function 𝜅 : ΩΣ → N ∪ {∞}
with 𝜅−1 (0) ̸= ∅. The ranks of closed formulas are defined as in the propositional case,
while the ranks of open formulas are defined as the ranks as their most plausible instances:
𝜅(𝐴(𝑥  ⃗ )) = min 𝜅(𝐴(𝑎       ⃗ )).
             ⃗𝑎∈ℋ𝐴(𝑥
                   ⃗)

   Generalizing the notion of acceptance of a first-order formula or conditional is straightforward
for closed formulas and conditionals. The treatment of acceptance of open formulas is more
intricate. The basic idea here is that such (conditional) open statements hold if there are
individuals called representatives that provide most convincing instances of the respective
conditional. For first-order knowledge bases 𝒦ℬ = ⟨ℱ, ℛ⟩, we say that a ranking function 𝜅
accepts ℛ, denoted by 𝜅 |= ℛ, iff 𝜅 |= 𝜙 for all 𝜙 ∈ ℛ. Furthermore, 𝜅 accepts 𝒦ℬ, denoted by
𝜅 |= 𝒦ℬ, iff 𝜅(𝜔) = ∞ for all 𝜔 ̸|= ℱ, and 𝜅 |= ℛ.
   To reason from a first-order knowledge base 𝒦ℬ = ⟨ℱ, ℛ⟩, we need to define inductively
specific ranking functions which are models of 𝒦ℬ. For conditional knowledge bases ℛ, we carry
over the idea of (propositional) c-representations [9] to the first-order case. All c-representations
of ℛ share similarly good properties for yielding high-quality inferences from ℛ resp. 𝒦ℬ.
So basically, all c-representations can be used as inductive models, or one might consider the
skeptical inference over all c-representations. For further details, please see [7].


References
[1] C. Eichhorn, G. Kern-Isberner, M. Ragni, Rational Inference Patterns Based on Conditional
    Logic, in: S. McIlraith, K. Weinberger (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI
    Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), AAAI Press, 1827–1834, URL https://www.
    aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI18/paper/view/16834, 2018.
[2] L.-P. Spiegel, G. Kern-Isberner, M. Ragni, Rational Inference Patterns, in: A. Nayak,
    A. Sharma (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial
    Intelligence PRICAI 2019, no. 11670 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer,
    Switzerland, ISBN 978-3-030-29907-1, 405–417, 2019.
[3] S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, M. Magidor, Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and
    cumulative logics, Artificial Intelligence 44 (1990) 167–207.
[4] D. Makinson, General Patterns in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, in: D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger,
    J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming,
    vol. 3, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 35–110, 1994.
[5] W. Spohn, Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States, in:
    Causation in Decision, Belief Change and Statistics: Proceedings of the Irvine Conference
    on Probability and Causation, vol. 42 of The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science,
    Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, NL, 105–134, 1988.
[6] W. Spohn, The Laws of Belief: Ranking Theory and Its Philosophical Applications, Oxford
    University Press, Oxford, UK, 2012.
[7] GabrieleKern-Isberner, M. Thimm, A Ranking Semantics for First-Order Conditionals, in:
    L. De Raedt, C. Bessiere, D. Dubois, P. Doherty, P. Frasconi, F. Heintz, P. Lucas (Eds.),
    Proceedings 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI-2012, no. 242 in
    Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, ISBN 978-1-61499-097-0,
    456–461, 2012.
[8] B. de Finetti, Theory of Probability, vol. 1,2, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1974.
[9] G. Kern-Isberner, A thorough axiomatization of a principle of conditional preservation in
    belief revision, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 40(1-2) (2004) 127–164.

</pre>