Evaluating Defaults
<|reference_start|>Evaluating Defaults: We seek to find normative criteria of adequacy for nonmonotonic logic similar to the criterion of validity for deductive logic. Rather than stipulating that the conclusion of an inference be true in all models in which the premises are true, we require that the conclusion of a nonmonotonic inference be true in ``almost all'' models of a certain sort in which the premises are true. This ``certain sort'' specification picks out the models that are relevant to the inference, taking into account factors such as specificity and vagueness, and previous inferences. The frequencies characterizing the relevant models reflect known frequencies in our actual world. The criteria of adequacy for a default inference can be extended by thresholding to criteria of adequacy for an extension. We show that this avoids the implausibilities that might otherwise result from the chaining of default inferences. The model proportions, when construed in terms of frequencies, provide a verifiable grounding of default rules, and can become the basis for generating default rules from statistics.<|reference_end|>
@article{kyburg2002evaluating,
    title={Evaluating Defaults},
    author={Henry E. Kyburg Jr. and Choh Man Teng},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:cs/0207083},
    year={2002},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={cs/0207083},
    primaryClass={cs.AI}
}