1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{amssymb}
3: \title{Stereotypical Reasoning: Logical Properties}
4: \author{Daniel Lehmann
5: \\Institute of Computer Science, Hebrew University,
6: \\Jerusalem 91904, Israel. \\E-mail:~lehmann@cs.huji.ac.il}
7: \date{24 October 1997.}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
11: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
12: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
13: \newtheorem{exercise}{Exercise}
14: \newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
15: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
16: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
17: \newtheorem{example}{Example}
18: \newenvironment{notation}{\noindent\bf Notation:\em\penalty100}{}
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: \newcommand{\blackslug}{\mbox{\hskip 1pt \vrule width 4pt height 8pt
21: depth 1.5pt \hskip 1pt}}
22: \newcommand{\QED}{\quad\blackslug\lower 8.5pt\null\par\noindent}
23: \newcommand{\proof}{\par\penalty-100\vskip .5 pt\noindent{\bf Proof\/: }}
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: \newcommand{\SEP}{\makebox[0in]{\rule{.5mm}{4.5mm}}}
26: \newcommand{\ru}{\rule[-0.4mm]{.1mm}{3mm}}
27: \newcommand{\nni}{\ru\hspace{-3.5pt}}
28: \newcommand{\sni}{\ru\hspace{-1pt}}
29: \newcommand{\pre}{\hspace{0.28em}}
30: \newcommand{\post}{\hspace{0.1em}}
31: \newcommand{\NIm}{\pre\nni\sim}
32: \newcommand{\NI}{\mbox{$\: \nni\sim$}}
33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
34: \newcommand{\cC}{\mbox{${\cal C}$}}
35: \newcommand{\Cn}{\mbox{${\cal C}n$}}
36: \newcommand{\eqdef}{\stackrel{\rm def}{=}}
37:
38: \hyphenation{mono-tony Mono-tony mono-tonic}
39:
40: \begin{document}
41: \maketitle
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: Stereotypical reasoning assumes that the situation at hand is
45: one of a kind and that it enjoys the properties generally associated
46: with that kind of situation.
47: It is one of the most basic forms of nonmonotonic reasoning.
48: A formal model for stereotypical reasoning is proposed and the logical
49: properties of this form of reasoning are studied.
50: Stereotypical reasoning is shown to be cumulative under weak assumptions.
51: Keywords: Prototypical Reasoning, Stereotypical Reasoning, Nonmonotonic
52: Consequence Relations.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56: Common sense reasoning in AI requires drawing inferences in a bolder,
57: more adventurous way, than mathematical reasoning.
58: Many different formalisms that implement some form of bold reasoning
59: have been proposed, implemented, used to build artificial systems.
60: Almost no work has been done comparing those formalisms with the way
61: natural intelligence deals with those tasks.
62: Minsky~\cite{MinskyWin:75,MinskyHaug:81}
63: represents probably one of the only efforts to model
64: reasoning performed by natural intelligence.
65:
66: During the last decades, philosophers, linguists, sociologists
67: have revolutionized the way we understand the human mind.
68: Putnam~\cite{Putnam:Mind} has criticized the classical philosophical
69: assumptions about
70: meaning, and claimed that stereotypes are a necessary component of
71: the meaning of terms.
72: Rosch~\cite{Rosch:73,Rosch:75a,Rosch:81}
73: has put in evidence the essential function of categorization in
74: achieving intelligence
75: and the intricate ways in which we use it.
76: Categorization is the process in which we relate a specific object or
77: situation to the kind we shall think it a member of.
78: She showed that many of our categories have prototypes, i.e., best
79: examples.
80: Lakoff~\cite{Lakoff:Women} resumes and expands much of this line of research.
81:
82: The purpose of this work is to begin the study of inferencing in
83: a mind that uses categories as described above.
84: A model of the simplest kind of inferencing using stereotypes will
85: be given and the formal properties of the inferencing process will
86: be studied.
87: The formal properties of inferencing that are of interest have
88: been singled out by~\cite{Gabbay:85,KLMAI:89,Mak:Handbook}.
89: \section{Stereotypical Reasoning}
90: In this work, stereotypical reasoning is used to denote what is
91: probably the simplest form of natural nonmonotonic reasoning.
92: The present use of the word stereotype is very closely related
93: to Putnam's stereotypes. He claimed that stereotypes are a necessary
94: part of the meaning of words denoting a {\em natural kind}.
95: Here, stereotypes are assumed not only for natural kinds but for
96: any state of information.
97: This could be understood as the assumption that stereotypes are
98: part of the meaning of any sentence, but the philosophical aspects
99: of this assumption are not discussed in this paper.
100: The point of this paper is the study of how stereotypes are used
101: in the inferencing process, and the formal properties of the inferencing
102: resulting from the use of stereotypes. The use of stereotypes
103: has not been discussed by Putnam.
104:
105: What is called here stereotypical reasoning is very closely related
106: to the use of what Rosch calls prototypical categories.
107: Prototypical alludes, though, to a richer structure than stereotypical
108: and this is the reason the latter term has been preferred.
109: In ordinary parlance stereotypes are considered to be typically
110: wildly inaccurate and an impediment to intelligent thinking.
111: This reputation should not hide the fact that the use of stereotypes
112: is a fundamental tool, probably the central tool, in achieving intelligence.
113: Hence, the importance of its study.
114: Nevertheless, the negative connotation attached to the word {\em stereotype}
115: should remind us we are studying a limited form of reasoning,
116: certainly not capable of exhibiting all forms of intelligence.
117:
118: Here is an example of what I will call stereotypical reasoning.
119: The choice of the {\em tiger} stereotype follows Putnam.
120: If Benjamin tells you that during his trip in India, hiking in the jungle,
121: he saw a tiger, you will assume he saw a large, frightening animal,
122: yellow with black stripes.
123: Note that not all tigers are such. Some tigers are small, dead, or albino.
124: You have been using the stereotype that says that tigers are big, dangerous
125: and yellow with black stripes. The use of this stereotype may be a mistake:
126: the end of the story may reveal this was an albino tiger,
127: but, typically, the use of the stereotype is precisely what enables
128: efficient communication, since Benjamin knows you have this stereotype
129: (as he has) he assumes you will draw the corresponding conclusions and
130: he intends you to draw those conclusions.
131:
132: This simple example already suggests a number of questions,
133: most of them will not be touched upon in this paper.
134: What is the nature, or the structure of the stereotype {\em tiger}?
135: Is it just a conjunction (or some other composition) of properties?
136: In this work, we shall assume that yes, a stereotype is a set of
137: possible states of affairs, but the proper treatment of prototypical
138: categories in general may need a more sophisticated structure.
139: Note, though, that we are not assuming (the classical view, attacked by Lakoff
140: and others) that categories are sets (of models), far from that.
141: We are only assuming that stereotypes are sets of models.
142: In fact, the way stereotypes are used makes them function
143: very much like the graded or
144: radial categories of Lakoff.
145:
146: How are such stereotypes acquired? This is certainly both deeply rooted
147: in our physiology and a social process.
148:
149: Why is this the {\em right} stereotype for tiger? Why is it any better
150: than some other? Here, an analysis of rationality and utility is certainly
151: needed.
152:
153: What made you apply the {\em tiger} stereotype to the little story above
154: and not, for example, the {\em jungle} stereotype that says that, in the
155: jungle, everything is dark green, or the {\em India} stereotype,
156: whatever this is
157: for you? In this paper this choice will be modeled by some distance
158: between the information at hand and the stereotype.
159: We shall not be able to explain why a specific distance is used.
160: Such an explanation would certainly be based on utility considerations.
161: \section{A formal model of stereotypical reasoning}
162: Informally, starting from information about the situation at hand,
163: one chooses the best stereotype to fit the information and uses both
164: the original information and the stereotypical information to draw conclusions.
165:
166: Formally, we assume $W$ is the set of all possible states of affairs
167: (i.e., models or situations).
168: We assume a collection (not necessarily finite, but it may well be finite)
169: of stereotypes, \mbox{$S_{i}$}. Notice we use lower indexes to identify
170: the stereotypes. Each stereotype is a subset of $W$,
171: the set of situations in which the stereotype holds.
172: For example the {\em tiger} stereotype, $S_{tiger}$ could be the set of all
173: models in which tigers are frightening live animals, yellow with black stripes.
174:
175: The user has some information, i.e., facts, about the situation at hand.
176: This information is modeled by a subset $F$ of $W$: the set of all situations
177: compatible with the information at hand.
178: On the basis of $F$, the reasoner picks up one of the stereotypes: $S^{F}$,
179: the stereotype most appropriate to $F$, in a way that will be discussed
180: later.
181: Notice we use here an upper index to denote the stereotype that best fits
182: some information $F$.
183: The reasoner will then conclude that the actual state of affairs
184: is one of the members of the intersection \mbox{$F' \eqdef F \cap S^{F}$}.
185: The nonmonotonicity of the reasoning stems from this jump from $F$ to
186: the subset $F'$.
187: Clearly, we do expect the set $F'$ to be non-empty, assuming $F$ is non-empty,
188: since we want to avoid jumping to contradictory conclusions.
189: It will be the task of the function that defines the best stereotype
190: to pick a stereotype that has a non-empty intersection with the information
191: $F$ at hand.
192: In many cases the facts $F$ are given by a formula $\alpha$ that is known to
193: be true. In this case $F$ is the set of all models that satisfy $\alpha$.
194: We shall identify the formula $\alpha$ and the set of its models and write
195: $S^{\alpha}$ for the stereotype most appropriate for the sets of models
196: of $\alpha$. A formula $\beta$ is then nonmonotonically deduced from
197: $\alpha$ iff it is satisfied by all elements of $F'$,
198: that is iff any model $m$ in the set $S^{\alpha}$ that satisfies
199: $\alpha$ satisfies $\beta$: \mbox{$\alpha \NI \beta$}
200: iff \mbox{$\forall m \in S^{\alpha}$},
201: \mbox{$m \models \alpha$} implies \mbox{$m \models \beta$}.
202:
203: Syntactically, this may be described as taking for \mbox{$\cC(X)$},
204: the set of nonmonotonic consequences of a set $X$ of formulas,
205: the set \mbox{$\Cn(X, g(X))$},
206: of all formulas that logically follow from the set
207: \mbox{$X \cup g(X)$}, where \mbox{$g(X)$} is the set of formulas
208: that hold in all models of the stereotype that best fits $X$.
209:
210: Our analysis of stereotypical reasoning will use the simplistic
211: model just described, since it is good enough for the purpose of this
212: paper. If one thinks of first-order languages and models, one may want
213: to refine this model and associate a stereotype
214: with each one of the objects of the structure: e.g., if our story refers
215: to two tigers about which one has different information, one will perhaps
216: use different stereotypes for each of the tigers: a mother tiger stereotype
217: and a pup tiger stereotype for example.
218:
219: Before we analyze some consequences of this model, let us point out
220: some of its basic limitations.
221: It is assumed that the conclusions from facts $F$ are drawn by identifying
222: a {\em unique} stereotype most appropriate for $F$. One may ask whether
223: this should be the case.
224: Instead of picking up a single stereotype, perhaps one should consider the
225: set of all most appropriate stereotypes and use them all, i.e. their
226: intersection.
227: Indeed the results of next section would hold also in this more general
228: model, but the uniqueness assumption will be needed later.
229: Intuitively it seems to me that we do pick up a unique stereotype,
230: sometimes made up of different stereotypes, but that this composition is almost
231: never the simple juxtaposition, i.e., conjunction of stereotypes.
232: The main reason probably is that such conjunctions are very often empty
233: and we certainly want to avoid drawing inconsistent conclusions from consistent
234: facts.
235: Consider, for example, our tiger above.
236: We did not use both the {\em tiger} and the {\em jungle} stereotypes
237: because they clash about the color of the tiger: yellow and black vs.
238: dark green. It may be the case that
239: a very smart reasoner will use a {\em tiger in the jungle} stereotype,
240: that implies the tiger is barely visible, but this stereotype,
241: though including, somehow,
242: both the {\em tiger} and the {\em jungle} stereotypes,
243: cannot be reduced to their conjunction.
244: To avoid premature commitment to a theory of the formation of compound
245: stereotypes, this paper will just assume any set $F$ of facts
246: is associated with a unique stereotype.
247: \section{First consequences of the model}
248: As general as it is, the model presented above has some important consequences
249: for the formal properties of the process of nonmonotonic deduction
250: it defines, i.e., of the consequence relation \NI.
251:
252: First, since what is defined by facts $F$ is a set of models, $F'$,
253: the set of nonmonotonic consequences of $F$, i.e., the set of formulas
254: that hold in all elements of $F'$ is a logical theory, i.e., closed
255: under logical consequence. In other terms, the relation \NI\ satisfies
256: the rules of Right Weakening and And of~\cite{KLMAI:89}.
257: Secondly, since $F'$ is a subset of $F$, any formula that is logically
258: implied by $F$ holds in all elements of $F'$, or, the relation \NI\ satisfies
259: the Reflexivity of~\cite{KLMAI:89}.
260: Lastly, since the information at hand is represented, semantically, by a set
261: of models, the relation \NI\ satisfies Left Logical Equivalence.
262: \section{Further assumptions}
263: The main purpose of this work is to consider whether other, more sophisticated,
264: logical properties may be expected from stereotypical reasoning.
265: It is clear that, in the very general model described above, without
266: further assumptions, nothing more can be expected:
267: given any relation \NI\ satisfying Left Logical Equivalence, Reflexivity,
268: Right Weakening and And, one may define, for any formula $\alpha$,
269: the stereotype $S^{\alpha}$ to be the set of all models that satisfy all
270: the formulas $\beta$ such that \mbox{$\alpha$ \NI $\beta$}.
271: Since the relation \NI\ is reflexive, all models of $S^{\alpha}$ satisfy
272: $\alpha$ and, for any $\alpha$, \mbox{$S^{\alpha} \subseteq F^{\alpha}$}.
273: Therefore \mbox{$F^{\alpha} \cap S^{\alpha} = S^{\alpha}$}
274: and the nonmonotonic consequence relation defined by the model is exactly
275: \NI.
276:
277: Our goal is to find some additional, reasonable, assumptions about
278: the set of stereotypes or the way the best stereotype for a set $F$ is
279: chosen that will have interesting consequences on the nonmonotonic
280: logic defined.
281: In fact, the set of stereotypes and its structure does not seem to
282: play an important role here and we shall concentrate on the choice
283: of the best stereotype.
284:
285: Notice that the mapping from a set $F$ to its best stereotype $S^{F}$
286: may be very wild. We do not expect, for example, that
287: \mbox{$F' \subseteq F$} should imply \mbox{$S^{F'} \subseteq S^{F}$}.
288: It may well be the case that {\em robins} is the best stereotype for birds,
289: but the best stereotype for antarctic birds is, for lack perhaps of knowledge
290: of a better one, {\em vertebrates}.
291:
292: It is extremely helpful to consider the process of associating to the set
293: $F$ the stereotype $S^{F}$ as based on some notion of distance between
294: {\em information sets} and {\em stereotypes}: the best stereotype
295: for $F$ is the stereotype closest to $F$:
296: \begin{equation}
297: \label{eq:close}
298: d(F, S^{F}) \leq d(F, S) , {\rm \ for \ every \ stereotype \ } S.
299: \end{equation}
300: Notice that this notion of distance is a bit unusual, since it is defined
301: only from information sets to stereotypes. We shall never use the notion
302: of the distance from a stereotype to an information set.
303: The assumption that our choice is based on some notion of a distance does
304: not limit the generality of our model, since one may always find a suitable
305: distance to fit any choice of best stereotype.
306: The interest of this assumption is that it suggests some natural
307: additional assumptions on the properties of this distance.
308: Those assumptions will be related to logical properties of the
309: nonmonotonic deduction.
310:
311: Let us suppose $D$ is a partially ordered set (of distances)
312: and that there is a function $d$ that associates an element of $D$
313: \mbox{$d(F,S)$} with every set of models $F$ (in fact every set of models that
314: could appear as an information set would be enough) and every stereotype $S$.
315: A first assumption, already described above, is that this distance
316: always enables us to pick a unique best stereotype.
317: \begin{itemize}
318: \item {\em Assumption zero}: for any given information set $F$ there
319: exists a {\em unique} stereotype $S^{F}$ such that
320: \mbox{$d(F , S^{F}) \leq d(F , S)$} for any stereotype $S$.
321: \end{itemize}
322: A number of examples of models and choice functions will be described.
323: They may not be very intuitively appealing, but their purpose is
324: to help the reader understand our definitions and prove the consistency
325: of the assumptions that shall be made below.
326: In all examples the set $D$ of distances is taken to be the set of integers,
327: eventually with $\infty$ added.
328: \begin{example}
329: \label{ex:1}
330: There is one stereotype only: $S_{0}$ and \mbox{$S_{0} = W$}.
331: The exact definition of the distance is irrelevant.
332: Assumption zero is satisfied trivially and, for any $F$,
333: \mbox{$S^{F}= S_{0} = W$}.
334: Clearly, for any $F$, \mbox{$F' = F \cap S^{F} = F$}, and therefore
335: $F'$ is non-empty if $F$ is.
336: The non-monotonic logic defined happens to be monotonic and to
337: be the classical one: \mbox{$\alpha$ \NI $\beta$} iff
338: \mbox{$\alpha \vdash \beta$}.
339: \end{example}
340: \begin{example}
341: \label{ex:2}
342: Assume the set $W$ is finite.
343: Every set \mbox{$S \subseteq W$} is a stereotype and
344: \[
345: d(F, S) \: = \: \mid S - F \mid \: - \: \mid S \cap F \mid,
346: \]
347: where \mbox{$\mid A \mid$} indicates the cardinality of the set $A$.
348: Since \mbox{$d(F, F) = - \mid F \mid \leq d(F, S)$} for any $S$,
349: we see that, for any $F$, \mbox{$S^{F} = F$}, and therefore
350: assumption zero is satisfied, \mbox{$F' = F$} and the logic defined
351: is the classical one as in Example~\ref{ex:1}.
352: \end{example}
353: \begin{example}
354: \label{ex:3}
355: Assume the set $W$ is the set of natural numbers.
356: Stereotypes are singletons of $W$.
357: Distances are defined in the following way:
358: if \mbox{$n \in F$}, \mbox{$d(F, \{n\}) = n$} and
359: if \mbox{$n \not \in F$}, \mbox{$d(F, \{n\}) = \infty$}.
360: Clearly $S^{F}$ is the singleton that contains the minimal element of $F$,
361: \mbox{$\min(F)$} and assumption zero is satisfied.
362: Note also that \mbox{$F' = \min(F)$} is non-empty if $F$ is non-empty.
363: The model boils down to considering that world $m$ is more probable
364: than world $n$ iff \mbox{$m < n$}.
365: The logic defined results in, given a set of possibilities $F$, jumping to
366: the conclusion that the most probable one must obtain.
367: This provides a highly nonmonotonic consequence relation.
368: \end{example}
369: The next example presents a simple, but natural, family of models.
370: \begin{example}
371: \label{ex:4}
372: Assume $W$ is finite and the set of (non-empty) stereotypes
373: \mbox{$S_{i}$}, \mbox{$i =0 , \ldots , k-1$} provides a
374: partition of $W$, i.e., \mbox{$\bigcup_{i \in k}S_{i} = W$}
375: and \mbox{$S_{i} \cap S_{j} = \emptyset$}, for any \mbox{$i \neq j$}.
376: Given a set $F$, we associate with it the stereotype $S_{j}$ which
377: {\em covers} $F$ best, i.e., for which the size of the set
378: \mbox{$S - F$} is minimal. In case this criterion does not define
379: a unique stereotype, choose the stereotype with smallest index.
380: Formally we may define the distance by:
381: \mbox{$d(F, S_{i}) = \mid S_{i} - F \mid + {i \over k}$}.
382: The consequence relation defined is nonmonotonic.
383: \end{example}
384: After these examples, let us consider interesting properties
385: of the distance $d$.
386: Since $F$ and $S$ are both sets of models (subsets of $W$) we may, without
387: loss of generality, assume that
388: \mbox{$d(F , S) = e(F \cap S , S - F , F - S)$}.
389: Three additional assumptions concerning the way the function $e$
390: depends on each
391: of its three arguments are now natural.
392: \begin{itemize}
393: \item {\em Assumption one}: the function $e$ is anti-monotone in its first
394: argument. I mean that if \mbox{$A \subseteq A'$}, then
395: \mbox{$e(A' , B , C) \leq e(A , B , C)$}.
396: The relation $\subseteq$ is the subset relation.
397: This assumption is very natural: $d(F, S)$ measures the closeness
398: of $F$ and $S$: the more they have in common,
399: the closer they are. In most cases we expect that the best stereotype
400: for $F$ should be consistent with $F$, i.e., have an non-empty intersection
401: with $F$. If this is the case, our assumption is only slightly stronger:
402: all other things being
403: equal, the best stereotype for $F$ has the largest intersection with $F$.
404: The set \mbox{$F \cap S^{F}$} represents the nonmonotonic consequences
405: of $F$; we prefer weaker consequences, therefore we prefer to take the
406: set \mbox{$F \cap S^{F}$} as large as possible.
407: \item {\em Assumption two}: the function $e$ depends monotonically
408: on its second argument. Here I mean that if \mbox{$B \subseteq B'$}, then
409: \mbox{$e(A , B , C) \leq e(A , B' , C)$}.
410: The second argument, \mbox{$B = S - F$} measures the set of models
411: compatible with the stereotype but excluded by the information.
412: Notice that the stereotype may be vague, i.e., contain a large number
413: of elements: for example the {\em bird} stereotype may include birds of many
414: colors, and the information at hand may exclude a lot of those elements:
415: for example we may know the bird we are discussing is yellow.
416: The more such elements are excluded by the information at hand,
417: the less suitable is the stereotype: if too many such elements are excluded
418: a more specific stereotype may be more suitable.
419: In our example, a {\em yellow bird} stereotype,
420: if there is one such stereotype, should be preferred.
421: \item {\em Assumption three}: the function $e$ does not depend on its third
422: argument.
423: It seems easy to justify that the function $e$ should depend monotonically
424: on its third argument, by an argument very similar to that used
425: for justifying assumption two.
426: It is perhaps a little less obviously natural that $e$ should not depend
427: at all on its third argument.
428: But, notice that the set \mbox{$F - S$} is a measure of the strength
429: of our nonmonotonic inference: the larger it is the more nonmonotonic
430: consequences we get in addition to the monotonic ones.
431: The argument just above is to the effect we should not get too many
432: such inferences, but
433: we are certainly interested in getting such nonmonotonic consequences,
434: and should not try to minimize them.
435: Our assumption is that how much nonmonotonicity we get should not
436: be a criterion in choosing
437: the best stereotype.
438: \end{itemize}
439:
440: Assumptions one to three may be summarized by the following:
441: for any $F$, $F'$ and any stereotypes $S$, $S'$, if
442: \begin{equation}
443: \label{eq:onethree}
444: F' \cap S' \subseteq F \cap S
445: {\rm \ and \ } S - F \subseteq S' - F' {\rm \ then \ }
446: d(F, S) \leq d(F' , S').
447: \end{equation}
448: \proof
449: \[
450: d(F, S) = e(F \cap S, S - F, F - S) \leq
451: e(F' \cap S', S' - F', F' - S') = d(F', S')
452: \]
453: \QED
454: One may notice that
455: Equation~\ref{eq:onethree} implies that \mbox{$d(F, S) = d(F \cap S, S)$}.
456: Let us consider the examples above again.
457: In Example~\ref{ex:1}, we may define the distance $d$ to be constant,
458: for example \mbox{$d(F, S) = 0$}.
459: Equation~\ref{eq:onethree} is obviously satisfied.
460: In Example~\ref{ex:2} also, Equation~\ref{eq:onethree} is obviously satisfied.
461: In Example~\ref{ex:3}, let us check that
462: Equation~\ref{eq:onethree} is satisfied.
463: Since stereotypes are singletons,
464: \mbox{$F' \cap S' \subseteq F \cap S$} implies that either
465: \mbox{$F' \cap S' = \emptyset$}, or \mbox{$S' = S = F' \cap S' = F \cap S$}.
466: In the first case \mbox{$ d(F' , S') = \infty$} and the result holds.
467: In the second case, if \mbox{$S = \{ n \}$},
468: \mbox{$d(F, S) = n = d(F', S')$}.
469: For Example~\ref{ex:4}, if \mbox{$F' \cap S' \subseteq F \cap S$} then,
470: either
471: \mbox{$F' \cap S' = \emptyset$}, or \mbox{$S' = S$}.
472: If \mbox{$S - F \subseteq S' - F'$}, then either \mbox{$S - F = \emptyset$}
473: or \mbox{$S' = S$}.
474: If \mbox{$S' = S = S_{i}$},
475: \[
476: d(F, S) \: = \: \mid S - F \mid \: + \: {i \over k} \: \leq \:
477: \mid S' - F' \mid \: + \: {i \over k} \:
478: = \: d(F', S').
479: \]
480: If \mbox{$S' = S_{j} \neq S = S_{i}$}, \mbox{$F' \cap S' = \emptyset$} and
481: \mbox{$S - F = \emptyset$},
482: \[
483: d(F, S) \: = \: {i \over k} \: < \: 1 \: \leq \: \mid S' \mid
484: \: \leq \: \mid S' \mid \: + \: {j \over k}.
485: \]
486: Equation~\ref{eq:onethree} is satisfied.
487:
488: In the sequel we shall assume, sometimes without recalling this explicitly,
489: that the distance $d$ satisfies
490: Equation~\ref{eq:onethree}.
491:
492: Our main result is that stereotypical reasoning yielded by a distance
493: that satisfies the four assumptions above:
494: i.e., uniqueness of the closest stereotype,
495: antimonotonicity of the distance \mbox{$d(F , S)$} in \mbox{$F \cap S$},
496: monotonicity in \mbox{$S - F$} and independence from \mbox{$F - S$},
497: is cumulative~\cite{KLMAI:89}.
498: The main result is therefore the following.
499: \begin{theorem}
500: \label{the:main}
501: If \mbox{$F \cap S^{F} \subseteq F' \subseteq F$}, then
502: \mbox{$S^{F'} = S^{F}$}.
503: \end{theorem}
504: \proof
505: Assume \mbox{$F \cap S^{F} \subseteq F' \subseteq F$}. We must show
506: that, for any stereotype $S$, we have
507: \mbox{$d(F' , S^{F}) \leq d(F' , S)$}.
508: First, since \mbox{$F \cap S^{F} \subseteq F'$},
509: we have both \mbox{$F \cap S^{F} \subseteq F' \cap S^{F}$}
510: and
511: \mbox{$S^{F} - F' \subseteq S^{F} - F$}, therefore, by
512: Equation~\ref{eq:onethree}, we have
513: \mbox{$d(F', S^{F}) \leq d(F, S^{F})$}.
514: By Equation~\ref{eq:close}, for any stereotype $S$,
515: \mbox{$d(F, S^{F}) \leq d(F, S)$} and therefore, for any $S$,
516: \mbox{$d(F', S^{F}) \leq d(F, S)$}.
517: Using, now, \mbox{$F' \subseteq F$}, we see that
518: \mbox{$F' \cap S \subseteq F \cap S$} and
519: \mbox{$S - F \subseteq S - F'$}. By Equation~\ref{eq:onethree},
520: then, \mbox{$d(F, S) \leq d(F', S)$},
521: and \mbox{$d(F' , S^{F}) \leq d(F' , S)$}, for any stereotype $S$.
522: \QED
523: \begin{corollary}
524: The nonmonotonic consequence relation \NI\ defined by stereotypical
525: reasoning yielded by a distance
526: that satisfies Equation~\ref{eq:onethree} satisfies Cut and Cautious
527: Monotonicity and is therefore cumulative.
528: \end{corollary}
529: \proof
530: Suppose \mbox{$\alpha$ \NI $\beta$}.
531: Let $F$ be the set of models of $\alpha$ and $F'$ be the set of
532: models of \mbox{$\alpha \wedge \beta$}.
533: The assumption \mbox{$\alpha$ \NI $\beta$} means that all elements of
534: \mbox{$F \cap S^{F}$} satisfy $\beta$, i.e.,
535: \mbox{$F \cap S^{F} \subseteq F'$}.
536: But clearly \mbox{$F' \subseteq F$}.
537: By Theorem~\ref{the:main}, \mbox{$S^{F'} = S^{F}$}
538: and \mbox{$ F \cap S^{F} = F' \cap S^{F'}$} and
539: \mbox{$\alpha$ \NI $\gamma$} iff \mbox{$\alpha \wedge \beta$ \NI $\gamma$}.
540: \QED
541: Karl Schlechta~\cite{Schl:counter} has found a cumulative consequence
542: relation \NI\ that cannot
543: be defined by any stereotypical reasoning system yielded by a distance
544: that satisfies Equation~\ref{eq:onethree}.
545: The exact characterization of those cumulative relations that can be
546: defined by stereotypical systems that satisfy Equation~\ref{eq:onethree}
547: is open.
548: In the next section, we shall discuss another basic logical property
549: of nonmonotonic system described in~\cite{KLMAI:89}, Or, i.e.,
550: preferentiality.
551: \section{Preferentiality}
552: Suppose each one of two information sets, $F$ and $F'$ enable us
553: to conclude that some formula $\alpha$ holds:
554: all elements of \mbox{$F \cap S^{F}$} and all elements of
555: \mbox{$F' \cap S^{F'}$} satisfy $\alpha$.
556: Does this imply that the union \mbox{$F \cup F'$} enables us
557: to conclude $\alpha$, i.e., do all elements of
558: \mbox{$(F \cup F') \cap S^{F \cup F'}$} satisfy $\alpha$?
559: The discussion of~\cite{KLMAI:89} explains why this seems to be a natural
560: property to expect.
561: For example, assuming we would conclude that a bird that lives in the country
562: flies, and that we would also conclude that a bird that lives in a city
563: flies.
564: Must we conclude that birds that live either in the country
565: or in a city fly?
566: Stereotypical reasoning does not always satisfy
567: this property for the following reason.
568: I guess that natural common-sense reasoning does not either,
569: for the same reason.
570: Suppose $\beta$ and $\gamma$ describe very different situations, whose best
571: stereotypes are different. It may happen, nevertheless that the same
572: property $\alpha$ will be shared both by models
573: of \mbox{$\beta \cap S^{\beta}$} and of \mbox{$\gamma \cap S^{\gamma}$}.
574: But the best stereotype for \mbox{$\beta \vee \gamma$} may be very general
575: and some models of, say, \mbox{$\beta \cap S^{\beta \vee \gamma}$}
576: may not satisfy $\alpha$.
577: Intuitively, if the reasons for concluding $\alpha$ from $\beta$
578: are very different from those for concluding $\alpha$ from $\gamma$,
579: there is little hope we shall be able to conclude $\alpha$ from the
580: disjunction \mbox{$\beta \vee \gamma$}.
581:
582: There is one interesting case, though, the case \mbox{$S^{F} = S^{F'}$},
583: in which the desired conclusion follows if we strengthen one of the
584: assumptions above. Since the function $e$ does not depend
585: on its third argument, by Assumption three, we shall write it
586: as a function of two arguments.
587: Let us assume:
588: \begin{itemize}
589: \item {\em Assumption four}:
590: \mbox{$e(A \cup A' , B) = \min\{e(A , B) , e(A' , B)\}$}.
591: \end{itemize}
592: Clearly, assumption one already implies
593: \mbox{$e(A \cup A' , B) \leq \min\{e(A , B) , e(A' , B)\}$} and
594: assumption four implies assumption one.
595: \begin{theorem}
596: \label{the:or}
597: Let assumptions zero--four be satisfied.
598: If \mbox{$S^{F} = S^{F'}$},
599: then \mbox{$S^{F \cup F'} = S^{F}$}.
600: \end{theorem}
601: \proof
602: Notice that we do not claim that the nonmonotonic consequence
603: relation defined is preferential.
604: Assume \mbox{$S^{F} = S^{F'}$}.
605: We must show that, for any stereotype $S$, we have
606: \mbox{$d(F \cup F' , S^{F}) \leq d(F \cup F' , S)$}.
607: Then,
608: \[
609: d(F \cup F' , S_{F}) =
610: e((F \cap S_{F}) \cup (F' \cap S_{F'}) ,
611: S_{F} - (F \cup F') ) \leq
612: \]
613: \[
614: e(F \cap S_{F} , S_{F} - F) =
615: d(F , S_{F}) \leq
616: d(F , S).
617: \]
618: Similarly \mbox{$d(F \cup F' , S_{F}) \leq d(F' , S)$} and
619: \[
620: d(F \cup F' , S_{F}) \leq \min\{d(F , S) , d(F' , S)\} = d(F \cup F' , S).
621: \]
622: The last equality stems from assumption four.
623: \QED
624: Consider our examples above.
625: In Example~\ref{ex:1}, the function $d$ is constant and therefore satisfies
626: condition four. The consequence relation, being classical, is in fact
627: preferential.
628: In Example~\ref{ex:2}, the function $d$ proposed does not satisfy
629: assumption four, nevertheless the relation defined is preferential.
630: In Example~\ref{ex:3}, the function $d$ satisfies assumption four.
631: The consequence relation defined, being classical, is in fact preferential.
632: In Example~\ref{ex:4}, assumption four holds, and therefore the conclusions
633: of Theorem~\ref{the:or}, but the consequence relation defined is {\em not}
634: preferential.
635: \section{Conclusion}
636: A formal description of stereotypical reasoning has been provided.
637: Under reasonable assumptions about the way stereotypes are attached
638: to information sets, this model yields a cumulative system.
639: The assumptions one--three concerning the distance between information
640: sets and stereotypes may perhaps be tested experimentally.
641: Preferentiality has been discussed, and found unplausible in general,
642: but a more limited natural property has been put in evidence.
643: Again, preferentiality should be tested experimentally.
644: The conditions proposed above that imply good logical behavior
645: are sufficient but not necessary.
646: Other conditions may be more natural and also sufficient.
647: The structure of the set $S$ of stereotypes, in particular,
648: has been left completely arbitrary.
649: A reasonable assumption may be that this set has a tree structure:
650: i.e., that if $S$ and $T$ are any two stereotypes such that
651: the intersection \mbox{$S \cap T$} is not empty, then
652: \mbox{$S \subseteq T$} or \mbox{$T \subseteq S$}.
653: \section{Acknowledgments}
654: I would like to thank the members of the different audiences
655: that reacted to the material above, while it was in gestation,
656: and in particular to Yuri Gurevich, Pierre Livet, Drew McDermott,
657: Karl Schlechta and Moshe Vardi.
658: This work was partially supported by the Jean and Helene Alfassa fund for
659: research in Artificial Intelligence and by grant 136/94-1 of the
660: Israel Science Foundation on ``New Perspectives on Nonmonotonic Reasoning''.
661:
662: \bibliographystyle{plain}
663:
664: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
665:
666: \bibitem{Gabbay:85}
667: Dov~M. Gabbay.
668: \newblock Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert
669: systems.
670: \newblock In Krzysztof~R. Apt, editor, {\em Proc. of the NATO Advanced Study
671: Institute on Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems}, pages 439--457, La
672: Colle-sur-Loup, France, October 1985. Springer-Verlag.
673:
674: \bibitem{KLMAI:89}
675: Sarit Kraus, Daniel Lehmann, and Menachem Magidor.
676: \newblock Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics.
677: \newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence}, 44(1--2):167--207, July 1990.
678:
679: \bibitem{Lakoff:Women}
680: George Lakoff.
681: \newblock {\em Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things}.
682: \newblock The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
683:
684: \bibitem{Mak:Handbook}
685: David Makinson.
686: \newblock General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning.
687: \newblock In D.~M. Gabbay, C.~J. Hogger, and J.~A. Robinson, editors, {\em
688: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming}, volume
689: 3, Nonmonotonic and Uncertain Reasoning, pages 35--110. Oxford University
690: Press, 1994.
691:
692: \bibitem{MinskyWin:75}
693: Marvin Minsky.
694: \newblock A framework for representing knowledge.
695: \newblock In Patrick~Henry Winston, editor, {\em The Psychology of Computer
696: Vision}, Computer Science Series, chapter~6, pages 211--277. McGraw Hill,
697: 1975.
698:
699: \bibitem{MinskyHaug:81}
700: Marvin Minsky.
701: \newblock A framework for representing knowledge.
702: \newblock In John Haugeland, editor, {\em Mind Design}, chapter~3, pages
703: 95--128. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1981.
704:
705: \bibitem{Putnam:Mind}
706: Hilary Putnam.
707: \newblock {\em Mind, Language, and Reality.}, volume~2 of {\em Philosophical
708: Papers}.
709: \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975.
710:
711: \bibitem{Rosch:73}
712: Eleanor Rosch.
713: \newblock Natural categories.
714: \newblock {\em Cognitive Psychology}, 4:328--350, 1973.
715:
716: \bibitem{Rosch:75a}
717: Eleanor Rosch.
718: \newblock Cognitive reference points.
719: \newblock {\em Cognitive Psychology}, 7:532--47, 1975.
720:
721: \bibitem{Rosch:81}
722: Eleanor Rosch.
723: \newblock Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems.
724: \newblock In E.~Scholnick, editor, {\em New Trends in Cognitive Representation:
725: Challenges to Piaget's Theory}, pages 73--86. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
726: Hillsdale, N.J., 1983.
727:
728: \bibitem{Schl:counter}
729: Karl Schlechta.
730: \newblock Remarks to stereotypical reasoning.
731: \newblock personal communication, November 1997.
732:
733: \end{thebibliography}
734:
735: \end{document}
736:
737: