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.
Abstract (translated)
不可判定的推理是一种推理，其中某些概括可能不适用于所有情况，即某些情况下可能出现普遍结论失败。为了描述这种推理，已经开发了许多形式系统。然而，对于一个建模者来说，从本体论角度选择一个最适合其领域的系统并不容易。在本文中，我们首先提出了一个基于异常性和可判定的框架，以便能够比较形式系统并揭示其本体论承诺。然后，我们将这个框架应用于比较四个系统，展示了从本体论角度看可能出现的差异。
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00685
