Action Theories are versatile and well-studied knowledge representation formalisms for modelling dynamic domains. However, traditional action theories allow only the specification of definite world knowledge, that is, universal rules for which there are no exceptions. When modelling a complex domain for which no complete knowledge can be obtained, axiomatisers face an unpleasant choice: either they cautiously restrict themselves to the available definite knowledge and live with a limited usefulness of the axiomatisation, or they bravely model some general, defeasible rules as definite knowledge and risk inconsistency in the case of an exception for such a rule. This thesis presents a framework for default reasoning in action theories that overcomes these problems and offers useful default assumptions while retaining a correct treatment of default violations. The framework allows to extend action theories with defeasible statements that express how the domain usually behaves. Normality of the world is then assumed by default and can be used to conclude what holds in the domain under normal circumstances. In the case of an exception, the default assumption is retracted, whereby consistency of the domain axiomatisation is preserved.

We provide a systematic in-depth study of the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), a recent generalisation of Dung\'s abstract argumentation frameworks. This is done by associating with an ADF its characteristic one-step consequence operator and defining various semantics for ADFs as different fixpoints of this operator. We first show that several existing semantical notions are faithfully captured by our definition, then proceed to define new ADF semantics and show that they are proper generalisations of existing argumentation semantics from the literature. Most remarkably, this operator-based approach allows us to compare ADFs to related nonmonotonic formalisms like Dung argumentation frameworks and propositional logic programs. We use polynomial, faithful and modular translations to relate the formalisms, and our results show that both abstract argumentation frameworks and abstract dialectical frameworks are at most as expressive as propositional normal logic programs.

Action Theories are versatile and well-studied knowledge representation formalisms for modelling dynamic domains. However, traditional action theories allow only the specification of definite world knowledge, that is, universal rules for which there are no exceptions. When modelling a complex domain for which no complete knowledge can be obtained, axiomatisers face an unpleasant choice: either they cautiously restrict themselves to the available definite knowledge and live with a limited usefulness of the axiomatisation, or they bravely model some general, defeasible rules as definite knowledge and risk inconsistency in the case of an exception for such a rule. This thesis presents a framework for default reasoning in action theories that overcomes these problems and offers useful default assumptions while retaining a correct treatment of default violations. The framework allows to extend action theories with defeasible statements that express how the domain usually behaves. Normality of the world is then assumed by default and can be used to conclude what holds in the domain under normal circumstances. In the case of an exception, the default assumption is retracted, whereby consistency of the domain axiomatisation is preserved.

We provide a systematic in-depth study of the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), a recent generalisation of Dung\''s abstract argumentation frameworks. This is done by associating with an ADF its characteristic one-step consequence operator and defining various semantics for ADFs as different fixpoints of this operator. We first show that several existing semantical notions are faithfully captured by our definition, then proceed to define new ADF semantics and show that they are proper generalisations of existing argumentation semantics from the literature. Most remarkably, this operator-based approach allows us to compare ADFs to related nonmonotonic formalisms like Dung argumentation frameworks and propositional logic programs. We use polynomial, faithful and modular translations to relate the formalisms, and our results show that both abstract argumentation frameworks and abstract dialectical frameworks are at most as expressive as propositional normal logic programs.

Description Logics (DLs) are increasingly successful knowledge representation formalisms, useful for any application requiring implicit derivation of knowledge from explicitly known facts. A prominent example domain benefiting from these formalisms since the 1990s is the biomedical field. This area contributes an intangible amount of facts and relations between low- and high-level concepts such as the constitution of cells or interactions between studied illnesses, their symptoms and remedies. DLs are well-suited for handling large formal knowledge repositories and computing inferable coherences throughout such data, relying on their well-founded first-order semantics. In particular, DLs of reduced expressivity have proven a tremendous worth for handling large ontologies due to their computational tractability. In spite of these assets and prevailing influence, classical DLs are not well-suited to adequately model some of the most intuitive forms of reasoning. The capability for abductive reasoning is imperative for any field subjected to incomplete knowledge and the motivation to complete it with typical expectations. When such default expectations receive contradicting evidence, an abductive formalism is able to retract previously drawn, conflicting conclusions. Common examples often include human reasoning or a default characterisation of properties in biology, such as the normal arrangement of organs in the human body. Treatment of such defeasible knowledge must be aware of exceptional cases - such as a human suffering from the congenital condition situs inversus - and therefore accommodate for the ability to retract defeasible conclusions in a non-monotonic fashion. Specifically tailored non-monotonic semantics have been continuously investigated for DLs in the past 30 years. A particularly promising approach, is rooted in the research by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor for preferential (propositional) logics and Rational Closure (RC). The biggest advantages of RC are its well-behaviour in terms of formal inference postulates and the efficient computation of defeasible entailments, by relying on a tractable reduction to classical reasoning in the underlying formalism. A major contribution of this work is a reorganisation of the core of this reasoning method, into an abstract framework formalisation. This framework is then easily instantiated to provide the reduction method for RC in DLs as well as more advanced closure operators, such as Relevant or Lexicographic Closure. In spite of their practical aptitude, we discovered that all reduction approaches fail to provide any defeasible conclusions for elements that only occur in the relational neighbourhood of the inspected elements. More explicitly, a distinguishing advantage of DLs over propositional logic is the capability to model binary relations and describe aspects of a related concept in terms of existential and universal quantification. Previous approaches to RC (and more advanced closures) are not able to derive typical behaviour for the concepts that occur within such quantification. The main contribution of this work is to introduce stronger semantics for the lightweight DL EL_bot with the capability to infer the expected entailments, while maintaining a close relation to the reduction method. We achieve this by introducing a new kind of first-order interpretation that allocates defeasible information on its elements directly. This allows to compare the level of typicality of such interpretations in terms of defeasible information satisfied at elements in the relational neighbourhood. A typicality preference relation then provides the means to single out those sets of models with maximal typicality. Based on this notion, we introduce two types of nested rational semantics, a sceptical and a selective variant, each capable of deriving the missing entailments under RC for arbitrarily nested quantified concepts. As a proof of versatility for our new semantics, we also show that the stronger Relevant Closure, can be imbued with typical information in the successors of binary relations. An extensive investigation into the computational complexity of our new semantics shows that the sceptical nested variant comes at considerable additional effort, while the selective semantics reside in the complexity of classical reasoning in the underlying DL, which remains tractable in our case.