Know your exceptions: Towards an Ontology of Exceptions in Knowledge Representation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00685v2
• Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 16:35:43 GMT
• Title: Know your exceptions: Towards an Ontology of Exceptions in Knowledge Representation
• Authors: Gabriele Sacco, Loris Bozzato, Oliver Kutz
• Abstract summary: Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning where some generalisations may not be valid in all circumstances. Various formalisms have been developed to model this kind of reasoning. It is not easy for a modeller to choose among these systems the one that better fits its domain from an ontological point of view.
• Score: 1.6574413179773757
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning where some generalisations may not be valid in all circumstances, that is general conclusions may fail in some cases. Various formalisms have been developed to model this kind of reasoning, which is characteristic of common-sense contexts. However, it is not easy for a modeller to choose among these systems the one that better fits its domain from an ontological point of view. In this paper we first propose a framework based on the notions of exceptionality and defeasibility in order to be able to compare formalisms and reveal their ontological commitments. Then, we apply this framework to compare four systems, showing the differences that may occur from an ontological perspective.

Related papers

• Towards Generalizable and Faithful Logic Reasoning over Natural Language via Resolution Refutation [24.584926992534346]
  We propose a novel framework, named Generalizable and Faithful Reasoner (GFaiR), which introduces the paradigm of resolution refutation. Resolution refutation has the capability to solve all first-order logic reasoning problems by extending reasoning rules and employing the principle of proof by contradiction. Our system outperforms previous works by achieving state-of-the-art performances in complex scenarios while maintaining performances in simple scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T06:28:44Z)
• Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models [98.90677711523645]
  We propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions. We show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T00:53:53Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• Invariant Causal Set Covering Machines [64.86459157191346]
  Rule-based models, such as decision trees, appeal to practitioners due to their interpretable nature. However, the learning algorithms that produce such models are often vulnerable to spurious associations and thus, they are not guaranteed to extract causally-relevant insights. We propose Invariant Causal Set Covering Machines, an extension of the classical Set Covering Machine algorithm for conjunctions/disjunctions of binary-valued rules that provably avoids spurious associations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T20:52:01Z)
• Addressing some common objections to generalized noncontextuality [0.0]
  We respond to criticisms about the definition of generalized noncontextuality and the possibility of testing it experimentally. One objection is that the existence of a classical record of which laboratory procedure was actually performed in each run of an experiment implies that the operational equivalence relations that are a necessary ingredient of any proof of the failure of noncontextuality do not hold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T19:00:04Z)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• A General Framework for Modelling Conditional Reasoning -- Preliminary Report [4.340338299803562]
  We introduce and investigate here a formalisation for conditionals that allows the definition of a broad class of reasoning systems. This framework covers the most popular kinds of conditional reasoning in logic-based KR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-15T17:33:39Z)
• A Description Logic for Analogical Reasoning [28.259681405091666]
  We present a mechanism to infer plausible missing knowledge, which relies on reasoning by analogy. This is the first paper that studies analog reasoning within the setting of description logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-10T19:06:07Z)
• When Hearst Is not Enough: Improving Hypernymy Detection from Corpus with Distributional Models [59.46552488974247]
  This paper addresses whether an is-a relationship exists between words (x, y) with the help of large textual corpora. Recent studies suggest that pattern-based ones are superior, if large-scale Hearst pairs are extracted and fed, with the sparsity of unseen (x, y) pairs relieved. For the first time, this paper quantifies the non-negligible existence of those specific cases. We also demonstrate that distributional methods are ideal to make up for pattern-based ones in such cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-10T08:34:19Z)
• Logical Neural Networks [51.46602187496816]
  We propose a novel framework seamlessly providing key properties of both neural nets (learning) and symbolic logic (knowledge and reasoning) Every neuron has a meaning as a component of a formula in a weighted real-valued logic, yielding a highly intepretable disentangled representation. Inference is omni rather than focused on predefined target variables, and corresponds to logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T16:55:45Z)
• A structure theorem for generalized-noncontextual ontological models [0.0]
  We use a process-theoretic framework to prove that every generalized-noncontextual ontological model of a tomographically local operational theory has a surprisingly rigid and simple mathematical structure. We extend known results concerning the equivalence of different notions of classicality from prepare-measure scenarios to arbitrary compositional scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T17:28:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.