MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W52985456

Towards an axiom system for default logic

2006· article· en· W52985456 on OpenAlexaff
Gerhard Lakemeyer, Hector J. Levesque

Bibliographic record

VenueRWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefault logicNon-monotonic logicAutoepistemic logicAxiomMathematicsZeroth-order logicDynamic logic (digital electronics)Intermediate logicSecond-order logicDeductive reasoningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMultimodal logicTheoretical computer scienceAlgebra over a fieldDescription logicHigher-order logicPure mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, Lakemeyer and Levesque proposed a logic of onlyknowing which precisely captures three forms of nonmonotonic reasoning: Moore’s Autoepistemic Logic, Konolige’s variant based on moderately grounded expansions, and Reiter’s default logic. Defaults have a uniform representation under all three interpretations in the new logic. Moreover, the logic itself is monotonic, that is, nonmonotonic reasoning is cast in terms of validity in the classical sense. While Lakemeyer and Levesque gave a model-theoretic account of their logic, a proof-theoretic characterization remained open. This paper fills that gap for the propositional subset: a sound and complete axiom system in the new logic for all three varieties of default reasoning. We also present formal derivations for some examples of default reasoning. Finally we present evidence that it is unlikely that a complete axiom system exists in the first-order case, even when restricted to the simplest forms of default reasoning.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen)Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207