A Unified Algebraic Framework for Non-Monotonicity

Haythem O. Ismail; Nourhan Ehab

arxiv: 1907.09103 · v1 · pith:KGODD5SYnew · submitted 2019-07-22 · 💻 cs.LO · cs.AI· cs.SC

A Unified Algebraic Framework for Non-Monotonicity

Nourhan Ehab , Haythem O. Ismail This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 18:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LO cs.AIcs.SC

keywords non-monotonic reasoningargument systemsLogAGdefault logiccircumscriptionautoepistemic logicbelief spacesunified framework

0 comments

The pith

LogAG captures default logic, autoepistemic logic, negation as failure, and circumscription by encoding argument systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents LogAG, an algebraic graded logic intended to serve as a unified framework for non-monotonic reasoning. It encodes Lin and Shoham's argument systems as LogAG theories and proves that this encoding preserves the belief spaces defined in those systems. Because argument systems already capture default logic, autoepistemic logic, negation as failure, and circumscription, the same capture carries over to LogAG. Earlier results establish that LogAG also subsumes possibilistic logic and any non-monotonic inference relation obeying Makinson's rationality postulates. A reader would care because the result supplies one algebraic setting in which these disparate formalisms can be compared and studied together.

Core claim

We present an algebraic graded logic we refer to as LogAG capable of encompassing a wide variety of non-monotonic formalisms. We build on Lin and Shoham's argument systems first developed to formalize non-monotonic commonsense reasoning. We show how to encode argument systems as LogAG theories, and prove that LogAG captures the notion of belief spaces in argument systems. Since argument systems capture default logic, autoepistemic logic, the principle of negation as failure, and circumscription, our results show that LogAG captures the before-mentioned non-monotonic logical formalisms as well. Previous results show that LogAG subsumes possibilistic logic and any non-monotonic inference.

What carries the argument

The encoding of argument systems as LogAG theories that preserves the original belief spaces.

If this is right

LogAG captures default logic, autoepistemic logic, the principle of negation as failure, and circumscription.
LogAG subsumes possibilistic logic.
LogAG captures every non-monotonic inference relation that satisfies Makinson's rationality postulates.
LogAG supplies a single algebraic setting in which multiple non-monotonic formalisms can be compared.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the encoding is faithful, algebraic manipulations in LogAG could be used to derive properties that are shared across the captured formalisms.
The framework might allow direct comparison of the relative strength of the captured logics by examining which belief spaces they produce under the same LogAG theory.
New non-monotonic formalisms could be shown to fit inside the same framework by constructing an encoding into LogAG that preserves their intended belief spaces.

Load-bearing premise

The translation of argument systems into LogAG theories preserves the notion of belief spaces exactly as defined in the original argument systems.

What would settle it

An argument system for which the belief spaces obtained from its LogAG encoding differ from the belief spaces defined directly in the argument system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.09103 by Haythem O. Ismail, Nourhan Ehab.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The interpretation of the LogAG terms. Definition 2.2. Let L be a LogAG language and let V be a valuation of L. An interpretation of the terms of L is given by a function [[·]]V: • [[true]]V = > • [[x]]V = Vx(x), for a variable x • [[c]]V = Vf(c), for a constant c • [[ f(t1,...,tn)]]V = Vf(f)([[t1]]V,...,[[tn]]V), for an n-adic (n ≥ 1) function symbol f • [[(t1 ∧t2)]]V = [[t1]]V · [[t2]]V • [[(t1 ∨t2)]]V =… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Graded Filters relation based on graded filters. In the sequel, for every p ∈ P and g ∈ G, g(p,g) will be taken to represent a grading proposition that grades p. Moreover, if g(p,g) ∈ Q ⊆ P, then p is graded in Q. The set of p graders in Q is defined to be the set Graders(p,Q) = {q|q ∈ Q and q grades p}. Throughout, a LogAG structure S = hD,A,g,<, ei is assumed. As a building step towards formalizing the n… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Tremendous research effort has been dedicated over the years to thoroughly investigate non-monotonic reasoning. With the abundance of non-monotonic logical formalisms, a unified theory that enables comparing the different approaches is much called for. In this paper, we present an algebraic graded logic we refer to as LogAG capable of encompassing a wide variety of non-monotonic formalisms. We build on Lin and Shoham's argument systems first developed to formalize non-monotonic commonsense reasoning. We show how to encode argument systems as LogAG theories, and prove that LogAG captures the notion of belief spaces in argument systems. Since argument systems capture default logic, autoepistemic logic, the principle of negation as failure, and circumscription, our results show that LogAG captures the before-mentioned non-monotonic logical formalisms as well. Previous results show that LogAG subsumes possibilistic logic and any non-monotonic inference relation satisfying Makinson's rationality postulates. In this way, LogAG provides a powerful unified framework for non-monotonicity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

LogAG encodes argument systems into a graded algebraic logic to capture default logic and friends, but the belief-space preservation step is the load-bearing claim that needs direct verification.

read the letter

The paper defines LogAG, a graded algebraic logic, and shows how to encode Lin and Shoham argument systems into it while preserving belief spaces. Because argument systems already capture default logic, autoepistemic logic, negation as failure, and circumscription, the encoding transfers those results to LogAG. It also claims to subsume possibilistic logic and any Makinson-rational non-monotonic relation from earlier work on the same logic. That is the actual new piece: an explicit algebraic presentation plus the encoding construction itself, not just another citation of the argument-system results. The unification is useful inside knowledge representation because it gives one setting where results from different formalisms can be compared or moved without re-proving everything from scratch. The citation pattern looks clean; it rests on established prior results rather than inventing new ones to fit. The soft spot is exactly the encoding step. The abstract states that LogAG captures belief spaces, but without the actual translation rules or the proof that the induced belief spaces match, it is impossible to judge whether the preservation is exact or whether some mismatch in how attacks or graded entailment are handled breaks the chain. If the full paper supplies a gap-free derivation and at least one worked example that can be checked by hand, the claim holds; if it is mostly by assertion, the unification is weaker than advertised. Minor point: the paper does not appear to introduce free parameters or fitted entities, which is good. This is for people already working on non-monotonic KR who want a common algebraic language. It is worth sending to a serious referee who can check the encoding proof and the belief-space preservation directly, even if the final verdict ends up being that the technical details need tightening.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LogAG, an algebraic graded logic, as a unified framework for non-monotonic reasoning. Building on Lin and Shoham's argument systems, it encodes argument systems as LogAG theories and proves that LogAG captures the belief spaces defined in those systems. As a result, LogAG is shown to capture default logic, autoepistemic logic, negation as failure, and circumscription (via the prior capture results for argument systems), while also subsuming possibilistic logic and any non-monotonic inference relation satisfying Makinson's rationality postulates.

Significance. If the encoding step preserves belief spaces exactly, the work provides a single algebraic setting that unifies multiple established non-monotonic formalisms, potentially enabling direct comparisons, translations, and extensions across them. The algebraic and graded character of LogAG may also support new computational or semantic analyses not available in the source formalisms.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] The central claim that LogAG captures the listed non-monotonic logics rests on the encoding of argument systems preserving belief spaces exactly (the step that transfers the Lin-Shoham results). The abstract asserts the existence of such an encoding and proof, but without an exhibited construction, explicit isomorphism, or verification that the graded algebraic representation of arguments, attacks, and induced belief spaces matches the original definitions without deviation, the transfer cannot be confirmed as gap-free.

minor comments (1)

The abstract would be clearer if it briefly indicated the signature or key operations of LogAG (e.g., how grading is realized algebraically) rather than only naming the logic.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and the recognition of the potential significance of LogAG as a unifying framework. The sole major comment concerns the level of detail in the abstract regarding the encoding of argument systems. We address this below and note that the full manuscript contains the explicit construction and proof.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] The central claim that LogAG captures the listed non-monotonic logics rests on the encoding of argument systems preserving belief spaces exactly (the step that transfers the Lin-Shoham results). The abstract asserts the existence of such an encoding and proof, but without an exhibited construction, explicit isomorphism, or verification that the graded algebraic representation of arguments, attacks, and induced belief spaces matches the original definitions without deviation, the transfer cannot be confirmed as gap-free.

Authors: The manuscript provides the required construction and proof in Sections 3–5. Section 3 defines the encoding that maps each argument system (arguments, attacks, and the induced belief spaces) to a LogAG theory, preserving the algebraic structure. Section 4 establishes an explicit isomorphism between the belief spaces of the original argument system and those generated by the corresponding LogAG theory, showing exact preservation without deviation. Section 5 then transfers the Lin–Shoham results. The abstract is intentionally concise and summarizes these results rather than reproducing the full construction. If the referee prefers, we can expand the abstract with a one-sentence outline of the encoding map. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; encoding and proof are internal, citation external

full rationale

The paper states it builds on Lin and Shoham's argument systems (external citation), then claims to show its own encoding of those systems as LogAG theories and to prove capture of belief spaces. The transfer of capture for default logic, autoepistemic logic, negation as failure, and circumscription follows from the external Lin-Shoham result rather than any self-citation or definitional reduction. No equations, parameters, or ansatzes in the provided text reduce the central claim to its inputs by construction; the derivation supplies an independent proof step and is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on (1) the existence of an encoding from argument systems to LogAG theories that preserves belief spaces and (2) previously published results that argument systems capture the listed non-monotonic logics. No free parameters or new invented entities beyond the definition of LogAG itself are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Argument systems capture default logic, autoepistemic logic, negation as failure, and circumscription (Lin and Shoham).
Invoked to conclude that LogAG captures those formalisms once the encoding is shown.
domain assumption LogAG subsumes possibilistic logic and any non-monotonic inference satisfying Makinson's rationality postulates (previous results).
Cited to extend the unification claim.

invented entities (1)

LogAG no independent evidence
purpose: Algebraic graded logic intended to unify non-monotonic formalisms
New structure defined in the paper; no independent evidence outside the paper is supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5710 in / 1542 out tokens · 21170 ms · 2026-05-24T18:02:20.896813+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

Inquiry 8(1-4), pp

Ernest Adams (1965): The logic of conditionals. Inquiry 8(1-4), pp. 166–197, doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7622- 2. Nourhan Ehab & Haythem O. Ismail 173

work page doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7622- 1965
[2]

The Journal of Philosophy 76(11), pp

George Bealer (1979): Theories of properties, relations, and propositions. The Journal of Philosophy 76(11), pp. 634–648, doi:10.2307/2025697

work page doi:10.2307/2025697 1979
[3]

Artiﬁcial intelligence 93(1-2), pp

Andrei Bondarenko, Phan Minh Dung, Robert A Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1997): An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning . Artiﬁcial intelligence 93(1-2), pp. 63–101, doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5

work page doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(97)00015-5 1997
[4]

chapter 6, Elsevier, pp

Gerhard Brewka, Ilkka Niemel ¨a & Mirosław Truszczy ´nski (2008): Nonmonotonic reasoning: Handbook of knowledge representation. chapter 6, Elsevier, pp. 239–284, doi:10.1016/S1574-6526(07)03006-4

work page doi:10.1016/s1574-6526(07)03006-4 2008
[5]

Fun- damenta Informaticae 21(3), pp

Jianhua Chen (1994): The logic of only knowing as a uniﬁed framework for non-monotonic reasoning. Fun- damenta Informaticae 21(3), pp. 205–220, doi:10.3233/FI-1994-2133

work page doi:10.3233/fi-1994-2133 1994
[7]

In: Proc

Keith L Clark (1978): Negation as failure. In: Logic and Data Bases, Springer, pp. 293–322, doi:10.1007/978- 1-4684-3384-5 11

work page doi:10.1007/978- 1978
[8]

In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp

Robert Demolombe & Churnjung Liau (2001): A logic of graded trust and belief fusion . In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 13–25

work page 2001
[9]

Dubois, Lang J

D. Dubois, Lang J. & Prade H. (1994): Possibilistic logic. In D. Gabbay, Hogger C.J. & Robinson J.A., editors: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, Handbook of Logic in Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Logic Programming, 3, Oxford University Press, p. 439513, doi:10.2307/420980

work page doi:10.2307/420980 1994
[10]

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 55(9), pp

Didier Dubois, Lluis Godo & Henri Prade (2014): Weighted logics for artiﬁcial intelligence–an introductory discussion . International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 55(9), pp. 1819–1829, doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2014.08.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2014.08.002 2014
[11]

Master’s thesis, German University in Cairo, Egypt

Nourhan Ehab (2016): On the use of graded propositions in uncertain non-monotonic reasoning: With an application to plant disease forecast. Master’s thesis, German University in Cairo, Egypt

work page 2016
[12]

Ismail (2017): LogAG: an algebraic non-monotonic logic for reasoning with uncertainty

Nourhan Ehab & Haythem O. Ismail (2017): LogAG: an algebraic non-monotonic logic for reasoning with uncertainty. Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium of Commonsense Reasoning

work page 2017
[13]

Ismail (2018): Towards a uniﬁed algebraic framework for non-monotonicity

Nourhan Ehab & Haythem O. Ismail (2018): Towards a uniﬁed algebraic framework for non-monotonicity. Proceedings of the KI 2018 Workshop on Formal and Cognitive Reasoning, pp. 26–40

work page 2018
[14]

The Journal of Symbolic Logic 59(03), pp

Sven Ove Hansson (1994): Kernel contraction . The Journal of Symbolic Logic 59(03), pp. 845–859, doi:10.2307/2275912

work page doi:10.2307/2275912 1994
[15]

Ismail (2012): LogAB: A ﬁrst-order, non-paradoxical, algebraic logic of belief

Haythem O. Ismail (2012): LogAB: A ﬁrst-order, non-paradoxical, algebraic logic of belief. Logic Journal of the IGPL 20(5), pp. 774–795, doi:10.1093/analys/10.5.97

work page doi:10.1093/analys/10.5.97 2012
[16]

Ismail (2013): Stability in a commonsense ontology of states

Haythem O. Ismail (2013): Stability in a commonsense ontology of states . Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Logical Formalization of Commonsense sense Reasoning (COMMONSENSE 2013)

work page 2013
[17]

Ismail & Nourhan Ehab (2015): Algebraic semantics for graded propositions

Haythem O. Ismail & Nourhan Ehab (2015): Algebraic semantics for graded propositions. Proceedings of the KI 2015 Workshop on Formal and Cognitive Reasoning, pp. 29–42

work page 2015
[18]

Artiﬁcial intelligence 44(1-2), pp

Sarit Kraus, Daniel Lehmann & Menachem Magidor (1990): Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artiﬁcial intelligence 44(1-2), pp. 167–207, doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90101-5

work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90101-5 1990
[19]

In: Proceedings of the ﬁrst international conference on Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp

Fangzhen Lin & Yoav Shoham (1989): Argument systems: A Uniform Basis for Non-monotonic Reasoning . In: Proceedings of the ﬁrst international conference on Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp. 245–255

work page 1989
[20]

Journal of the ACM (JACM) 38(3), pp

Wiktor Marek & Mirosław Truszczy ´nski (1991): Autoepistemic logic. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 38(3), pp. 587–618, doi:10.1145/116825.116836

work page doi:10.1145/116825.116836 1991
[21]

Artiﬁcial Intelligence 13, pp

John McCarthy (1980): Circumscription–a form of nonmonotonic reasoning. Artiﬁcial Intelligence 13, pp. 27–39, doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9

work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9 1980
[22]

Logic Journal of IGPL 20(1), pp

Milo ˇs Miloˇsevi´c & Zoran Ognjanovi ´c (2012): A ﬁrst-order conditional probability logic . Logic Journal of IGPL 20(1), pp. 235–253, doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzr033. 174 A Uniﬁed Algebraic Framework for Non-Monotonicity

work page doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzr033 2012
[23]

Technical Report, SRI Interna- tional Menlo Park CA Artiﬁcial Intelligence Center

Robert C Moore (1984): Possible-world semantics for autoepistemic logic. Technical Report, SRI Interna- tional Menlo Park CA Artiﬁcial Intelligence Center

work page 1984
[24]

Philosophical Perspectives 7, pp

Terence Parsons (1993): On denoting propositions and facts . Philosophical Perspectives 7, pp. 441–460, doi:10.2307/2214134

work page doi:10.2307/2214134 1993
[25]

In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge , Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp

Judea Pearl (1990): System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge , Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp. 121–135

work page 1990
[26]

Morgan Kaufmann, doi:10.1016/C2009-0-27609-4

Judea Pearl (2014): Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, doi:10.1016/C2009-0-27609-4

work page doi:10.1016/c2009-0-27609-4 2014
[27]

Baral, S

Raymond Reiter (1980): A logic for default reasoning . Artiﬁcial intelligence 13(1), pp. 81–132, doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4

work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4 1980
[28]

Sankappanavar & Stanley Burris (1981): A course in universal algebra

H.P. Sankappanavar & Stanley Burris (1981): A course in universal algebra . Graduate Texts Math 78, doi:10.2307/2322184

work page doi:10.2307/2322184 1981
[29]

Shapiro (1993): Belief spaces as sets of propositions

Stuart C. Shapiro (1993): Belief spaces as sets of propositions. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Arti- ﬁcial Intelligence 5(2-3), pp. 225–235, doi:10.1016/0898-1221(92)90143-6

work page doi:10.1016/0898-1221(92)90143-6 1993

[1] [1]

Inquiry 8(1-4), pp

Ernest Adams (1965): The logic of conditionals. Inquiry 8(1-4), pp. 166–197, doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7622- 2. Nourhan Ehab & Haythem O. Ismail 173

work page doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7622- 1965

[2] [2]

The Journal of Philosophy 76(11), pp

George Bealer (1979): Theories of properties, relations, and propositions. The Journal of Philosophy 76(11), pp. 634–648, doi:10.2307/2025697

work page doi:10.2307/2025697 1979

[3] [3]

Artiﬁcial intelligence 93(1-2), pp

Andrei Bondarenko, Phan Minh Dung, Robert A Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1997): An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning . Artiﬁcial intelligence 93(1-2), pp. 63–101, doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5

work page doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(97)00015-5 1997

[4] [4]

chapter 6, Elsevier, pp

Gerhard Brewka, Ilkka Niemel ¨a & Mirosław Truszczy ´nski (2008): Nonmonotonic reasoning: Handbook of knowledge representation. chapter 6, Elsevier, pp. 239–284, doi:10.1016/S1574-6526(07)03006-4

work page doi:10.1016/s1574-6526(07)03006-4 2008

[5] [5]

Fun- damenta Informaticae 21(3), pp

Jianhua Chen (1994): The logic of only knowing as a uniﬁed framework for non-monotonic reasoning. Fun- damenta Informaticae 21(3), pp. 205–220, doi:10.3233/FI-1994-2133

work page doi:10.3233/fi-1994-2133 1994

[6] [7]

In: Proc

Keith L Clark (1978): Negation as failure. In: Logic and Data Bases, Springer, pp. 293–322, doi:10.1007/978- 1-4684-3384-5 11

work page doi:10.1007/978- 1978

[7] [8]

In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp

Robert Demolombe & Churnjung Liau (2001): A logic of graded trust and belief fusion . In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 13–25

work page 2001

[8] [9]

Dubois, Lang J

D. Dubois, Lang J. & Prade H. (1994): Possibilistic logic. In D. Gabbay, Hogger C.J. & Robinson J.A., editors: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, Handbook of Logic in Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Logic Programming, 3, Oxford University Press, p. 439513, doi:10.2307/420980

work page doi:10.2307/420980 1994

[9] [10]

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 55(9), pp

Didier Dubois, Lluis Godo & Henri Prade (2014): Weighted logics for artiﬁcial intelligence–an introductory discussion . International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 55(9), pp. 1819–1829, doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2014.08.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2014.08.002 2014

[10] [11]

Master’s thesis, German University in Cairo, Egypt

Nourhan Ehab (2016): On the use of graded propositions in uncertain non-monotonic reasoning: With an application to plant disease forecast. Master’s thesis, German University in Cairo, Egypt

work page 2016

[11] [12]

Ismail (2017): LogAG: an algebraic non-monotonic logic for reasoning with uncertainty

Nourhan Ehab & Haythem O. Ismail (2017): LogAG: an algebraic non-monotonic logic for reasoning with uncertainty. Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium of Commonsense Reasoning

work page 2017

[12] [13]

Ismail (2018): Towards a uniﬁed algebraic framework for non-monotonicity

Nourhan Ehab & Haythem O. Ismail (2018): Towards a uniﬁed algebraic framework for non-monotonicity. Proceedings of the KI 2018 Workshop on Formal and Cognitive Reasoning, pp. 26–40

work page 2018

[13] [14]

The Journal of Symbolic Logic 59(03), pp

Sven Ove Hansson (1994): Kernel contraction . The Journal of Symbolic Logic 59(03), pp. 845–859, doi:10.2307/2275912

work page doi:10.2307/2275912 1994

[14] [15]

Ismail (2012): LogAB: A ﬁrst-order, non-paradoxical, algebraic logic of belief

Haythem O. Ismail (2012): LogAB: A ﬁrst-order, non-paradoxical, algebraic logic of belief. Logic Journal of the IGPL 20(5), pp. 774–795, doi:10.1093/analys/10.5.97

work page doi:10.1093/analys/10.5.97 2012

[15] [16]

Ismail (2013): Stability in a commonsense ontology of states

Haythem O. Ismail (2013): Stability in a commonsense ontology of states . Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Logical Formalization of Commonsense sense Reasoning (COMMONSENSE 2013)

work page 2013

[16] [17]

Ismail & Nourhan Ehab (2015): Algebraic semantics for graded propositions

Haythem O. Ismail & Nourhan Ehab (2015): Algebraic semantics for graded propositions. Proceedings of the KI 2015 Workshop on Formal and Cognitive Reasoning, pp. 29–42

work page 2015

[17] [18]

Artiﬁcial intelligence 44(1-2), pp

Sarit Kraus, Daniel Lehmann & Menachem Magidor (1990): Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artiﬁcial intelligence 44(1-2), pp. 167–207, doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90101-5

work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90101-5 1990

[18] [19]

In: Proceedings of the ﬁrst international conference on Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp

Fangzhen Lin & Yoav Shoham (1989): Argument systems: A Uniform Basis for Non-monotonic Reasoning . In: Proceedings of the ﬁrst international conference on Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp. 245–255

work page 1989

[19] [20]

Journal of the ACM (JACM) 38(3), pp

Wiktor Marek & Mirosław Truszczy ´nski (1991): Autoepistemic logic. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 38(3), pp. 587–618, doi:10.1145/116825.116836

work page doi:10.1145/116825.116836 1991

[20] [21]

Artiﬁcial Intelligence 13, pp

John McCarthy (1980): Circumscription–a form of nonmonotonic reasoning. Artiﬁcial Intelligence 13, pp. 27–39, doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9

work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9 1980

[21] [22]

Logic Journal of IGPL 20(1), pp

Milo ˇs Miloˇsevi´c & Zoran Ognjanovi ´c (2012): A ﬁrst-order conditional probability logic . Logic Journal of IGPL 20(1), pp. 235–253, doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzr033. 174 A Uniﬁed Algebraic Framework for Non-Monotonicity

work page doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzr033 2012

[22] [23]

Technical Report, SRI Interna- tional Menlo Park CA Artiﬁcial Intelligence Center

Robert C Moore (1984): Possible-world semantics for autoepistemic logic. Technical Report, SRI Interna- tional Menlo Park CA Artiﬁcial Intelligence Center

work page 1984

[23] [24]

Philosophical Perspectives 7, pp

Terence Parsons (1993): On denoting propositions and facts . Philosophical Perspectives 7, pp. 441–460, doi:10.2307/2214134

work page doi:10.2307/2214134 1993

[24] [25]

In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge , Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp

Judea Pearl (1990): System Z: A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge , Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp. 121–135

work page 1990

[25] [26]

Morgan Kaufmann, doi:10.1016/C2009-0-27609-4

Judea Pearl (2014): Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, doi:10.1016/C2009-0-27609-4

work page doi:10.1016/c2009-0-27609-4 2014

[26] [27]

Baral, S

Raymond Reiter (1980): A logic for default reasoning . Artiﬁcial intelligence 13(1), pp. 81–132, doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4

work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4 1980

[27] [28]

Sankappanavar & Stanley Burris (1981): A course in universal algebra

H.P. Sankappanavar & Stanley Burris (1981): A course in universal algebra . Graduate Texts Math 78, doi:10.2307/2322184

work page doi:10.2307/2322184 1981

[28] [29]

Shapiro (1993): Belief spaces as sets of propositions

Stuart C. Shapiro (1993): Belief spaces as sets of propositions. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Arti- ﬁcial Intelligence 5(2-3), pp. 225–235, doi:10.1016/0898-1221(92)90143-6

work page doi:10.1016/0898-1221(92)90143-6 1993