Are you an EPFL student looking for a semester project?
Work with us on data science and visualisation projects, and deploy your project as an app on top of Graph Search.
Concept
Autoepistemic logic
Summary
The autoepistemic logic is a formal logic for the representation and reasoning of knowledge about knowledge. While propositional logic can only express facts, autoepistemic logic can express knowledge and lack of knowledge about facts.
The stable model semantics, which is used to give a semantics to logic programming with negation as failure, can be seen as a simplified form of autoepistemic logic.
The syntax of autoepistemic logic extends that of propositional logic by a modal operator indicating knowledge: if is a formula, indicates that is known. As a result, indicates that is known and indicates that is not known.
This syntax is used for allowing reasoning based on knowledge of facts. For example, means that is assumed false if it is not known to be true. This is a form of negation as failure.
The semantics of autoepistemic logic is based on the expansions of a theory, which have a role similar to models in propositional logic. While a propositional model specifies which axioms are true or false, an expansion specifies which formulae are true and which ones are false. In particular, the expansions of an autoepistemic formula makes this distinction for every subformula contained in . This distinction allows to be treated as a propositional formula, as all its subformulae containing are either true or false. In particular, checking whether entails in this condition can be done using the rules of the propositional calculus. In order for an initial assumption to be an expansion, it must be that a subformula is entailed if and only if has been initially assumed true.
In terms of possible world semantics, an expansion of consists of an S5 model of in which the possible worlds consist only of worlds where is true. [The possible worlds need not contain all such consistent worlds; this corresponds to the fact that modal propositions are assigned truth values before checking derivability of the ordinary propositions.] Thus, autoepistemic logic extends S5; the extension is proper, since and are tautologies of autoepistemic logic, but not of S5.
Official source
About this result
This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.
Related courses (1)
CS-330: Artificial intelligence
Introduction aux techniques de l'Intelligence Artificielle, complémentée par des exercices de programmation qui montrent les algorithmes et des exemples de leur application à des problèmes pratiques.
Related lectures (1)
Uncertain Reasoning: Bayesian Networks
Explores uncertain reasoning, Bayesian networks, and stochastic resolution, emphasizing the importance of probabilistic logic and abduction.
Related publications (2)
Related concepts (4)
Stable model semantics
The concept of a stable model, or answer set, is used to define a declarative semantics for logic programs with negation as failure. This is one of several standard approaches to the meaning of negation in logic programming, along with program completion and the well-founded semantics. The stable model semantics is the basis of answer set programming.
Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It studies how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. It examines arguments expressed in natural language while formal logic uses formal language.
Non-monotonic logic
A non-monotonic logic is a formal logic whose conclusion relation is not monotonic. In other words, non-monotonic logics are devised to capture and represent defeasible inferences (cf. defeasible reasoning), i.e., a kind of inference in which reasoners draw tentative conclusions, enabling reasoners to retract their conclusion(s) based on further evidence. Most studied formal logics have a monotonic entailment relation, meaning that adding a formula to a theory never produces a pruning of its set of conclusions.