Abduction

Abduction as a form of reasoning is relatively new. Charles Sanders Peirce called it

abduction to infer a premise from a conclusion. For example, since if it rains, the grass
gets wet, one can abduce (hypothesize) that it probably rained.
Strictly speaking, abductive reasoning is fallacious, a logical error. But Peirce argued
that this kind of reasoning has evolved in humans, who have become adept at selecting
the best hypothesis to explain the condition.

Abduction means determining the precondition. It is using

the conclusion and the rule to assume that the precondition could
explain the conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet.
The grass is wet, it must have rained." Diagnosticians and detectives
are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.
It allows inferring

as an explanation of . Because of this, abduction

allows the precondition

of entails to be inferred from the

consequence . Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in

which a rule like entails is used for inference. As such abduction is
formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent or Post
hoc ergo propter hoc, because there are multiple possible explanations
for .
Unlike deduction and induction, abduction can produce results that are incorrect
within its formal system. However, it can still be useful as a heuristic, especially
when something is known about the likelihood of different causes for .

Analogical Inference
An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects that
highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar. Analogical reasoning is
any type of thinking that relies upon an analogy. An analogical argument is an
explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted
similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further
similarity exists. In general (but not always), such arguments belong in the category
of inductive reasoning, since their conclusions do not follow with certainty but are
only supported with varying degrees of strength. Here, inductive reasoning is used
in a broad sense that includes all inferential processes that expand knowledge in the
face of uncertainty (Holland et al. 1986: 1), including abductive inference.

Analogical reasoning is fundamental to human thought and, arguably, to some

nonhuman animals as well. Historically, analogical reasoning has played an
important, but sometimes mysterious, role in a wide range of problem-solving
contexts. The explicit use of analogical arguments, since antiquity, has been a
distinctive feature of scientific, philosophical and legal reasoning. This article focuses
primarily on the nature, evaluation and justification of analogical arguments

Uninformed Search[edit]
Uninformed search (blind search) has no information about the number of steps or the path
costs from the current state to the goal. They can only distinguish a goal state from a nongoal state. There is no bias to go towards the desired goal.
For search algorithms, open list usually means the set of nodes yet to be explored
and closed list the set of nodes that have already been explored.
1. Breadth-First-Search

Starts with the rootnode and explores all neighboring nodes and repeats this
for every one of those (expanding the "depth" of the search tree by one in each
iteration). This is realized in a FIFO queue. Thus, it does an exhaustive search
until it finds a goal.

BFS is complete (i.e. it finds the goal if one exists and the branching factor is
finite).

It is optimal (i.e. if it finds the node, it will be the shallowest in the search
tree).

Space:

Time:

2. Depth-First-Search

Explores one path to the deepest level and then backtracks until it finds a
goal state. This is realized in a LIFO queue (i.e. stack).

DFS is complete (if the search tree is finite).

It is not optimal (it stops at the first goal state it finds, no matter if there is
another goal state that is shallower than that).

Space:

Time:

(much lower than BFS).

(Higher than BFS if there is a solution on a level smaller than

the maximum depth of the tree).

Danger of running out of memory or running indefinitely for infinite trees.

3. Depth-Limited-Search / Iterative Deepening

To avoid that, the search depth for DFS can be either limited to a constant
value, or increased iteratively over time, gradually increasing the maximum
depth to which it is applied. This is repeated until finding a goal. Combines
advantages of DFS and BFS.

ID is complete.

It is optimal (the shallowest goal state will be found first, since the level is
increased by one every iteration).

Space:

(better than DFS, d is depth of shallowest goal state, instead

of m, maximum depth of the whole tree).

Time:

4. Bi-Directional Search

Searches the tree both forward from the initial state and backward from the
goal and stops when they meet somewhere in the middle.

It is complete and optimal.

Space:

Time:

Informed Search[edit]

.
.

In informed search, a heuristic is used as a guide that leads to better overall performance in
getting to the goal state. Instead of exploring the search tree blindly, one node at a time, the
nodes that we could go to are ordered according to some evaluation function

that

determines which node is probably the "best" to go to next. This node is then expanded and
the process is repeated (i.e. Best First Search). A* Search is a form of BestFS. In order to
direct the search towards the goal, the evaluation function must include some estimate of the
cost to reach the closest goal state from a given state. This can be based on knowledge
about the problem domain, the description of the current node, the search cost up to the
current node BestFS optimizes DFS by expanding the most promising node first. Efficient
selection of the current best candidate is realized by a priority queue.
1. Greedy Search:

Minimizes the estimated cost to reach the goal. The node that is closest to
the goal according to

is always expanded first. It optimizes the search

locally, but not always finds the global optimum.

It is not complete (can go down an infinite branch of the tree).

It is not optimal.

Space:

Same for time, but can be reduced by choosing a good heuristic function.

for the worst case.

2. A* Search:

Combines uniform cost search (i.e. expand node on path with lowest cost so
far) and greedy search. Evaluation function is

(or

estimated cost of the cheapest solution through node n). It can be proven that A*
is complete and optimal if

is admissible - that is, if it never overestimates the

cost to reach the goal. This is optimistic, since they think the cost of solving the
problem is less than it actually is.

Examples for :

Path-Finding in a map: Straight-Line-Distance.

8-Puzzle: Manhattan-Distance to Goal State.

Everything works, it just has to be admissible (e.g.

always works, but transforms A* back to uniform cost search).

If a heuristic function

estimates the actual distance to the goal better than

another heuristic function

, then

dominates

A* maintains an open list (priority queue) and a closed list (visited nodes). If a
node is expanded that's already in the closed list, stored with a lower cost, the
new node is ignored. If it was stored with a higher cost, it is deleted from the
closed list and the new node is processed.

is monotonic, if the difference between the heuristics of any two

connected nodes does not overestimate the actual distance between those
nodes. Example of a non-monotonic heuristic:
nodes, where

is the parent of

and

. Suppose

and

we know that the true cost of a solution path through

suppose that

and

are two connected

. Hence,

, then

is at least 7. Now
.

First off, the difference in the heuristics (that is, 2) overestimates the
actual cost between those nodes (which is 1).

However, we know that any path through

and we already know that any path through
Thus, the f-value of 6 for

is also a path through

has a true cost of at least 7.

is meaningless and we will consider its parent's

f-value.

is consistent, if the h-value for a given node is less or equal than the actual
cost from this node to the next node plus the h-value from this next node
(triangular inequality).

If

is admissible and monotonic, the first solution found by A* is

guaranteed to be the optimal solution (open/close list bookkeeping is no longer

needed).
Finding Heuristics:

Relax the problem (e.g. 8-puzzle: Manhattan distance).

Calculate cost of subproblems (e.g. 8-puzzle: calculate cost of first 3 tiles).

Conclusion
Uninformed Search TechniqueBrute force or blind,
uses no knowledge about problem,
hence not so efficient.
Informed Search TechniqueHeuristic or intelligent,
uses prior knowledge about problem,
hence very efficient

The Means-Ends Problem Solving

Technique
By Royston, on February 1st, 2011

MEA (Means-Ends Analysis) is an a approach that puts together aspects of both

forward and backward reasoning in that both the condition and action portions of rules
are considered when we decide which rules to apply. The logic of the process takes into
account the gap between the current situation and the desired goal where we wish to
get to and proposes actions in order to close the gap between the two.
The method uses a set of rules that enable the goal to be achieved iteratively. The rules
consist of two parts: rules that are prerequisites and ones that show the changes to be
implemented.
MEA works by considering the present position as the current state and the objective as
the goal state. The differences between the desired and the goal state are considered and
actions are proposed that reduce the gap between the initial and desired states.
Since the process is working from the current state towards a goal it is said to be doing
forward chaining which implies a search strategy and a procedure that regards goal
achievement as success or if the outcome of a sub-goal is failure a new search is begun
(or the process terminates as not possible).
Consider the following examples.
1. In a travel problem the current state and the goal state are defined by physical
locations where we are now and where we have to get to.
2. In an assembly problem such as an IKEA flat pack the current state and the goal
state are defined by the raw materials lying in a heap along with instructions on
the floor and the finished product in your kitchen.
Aunt Agatha and the invite to tea
Aunt Agatha lives in Brighton and has invited me to tea this afternoon she has a lot of
money which she may leave to me which is actually a longer term goal for this journey. I
am sitting in my office in London and need to decide how to get to Brighton.

Now there are lots of ways to do this: train, car, bus, on foot, private jet or roller blades
but I subject myself to the following cost constraints:

I must arrive at Brighton today within three hours

The journey must cost no more than $100

Any distance less than one mile must be walked

To begin this process I consider the available means against my constraints and decide on
taking the train via Victoria to Brighton. To do this I need to leave my office and travel to
the main station at Victoria which is a new goal.
To get to Victoria I can walk, take a taxi, bus or go by underground. Because of time
constraints and cost I decide to take the underground to Victoria this becomes a new
sub goal. The nearest tube station being less than one mile away I walk
On arrival at the station I find the line is down due to a breakdown (goal failure). I can
return on foot to get my car to drive to Brighton but this moves me away from my goal on
cost and distance. I decide to take the bus to Victoria which becomes a new goal and as
the distance is less than one mile I walk to the bus station.
I take the bus to Victoria alight and walk to the station office and purchase a ticket to
Brighton. At Brighton I have to get to Agathas house I can use the Bus, Taxi or Walk. As
the distance is less than one mile I walk and arrive at Aunt Agathas house the end goal.
Just then my cell phone rings with a message and its Aunt Agatha, I hope you dont mind
but I forgot I have to be in London today perhaps we can make it next week
Arghhhhhhhh!!!
Some problems for you to solve
Vicars and Tarts
There are 3 Vicars and 3 Tarts and a boat on one side of a river and the church on the
other. How can the 6 of them get across the river for morning prayers in the boat subject
to the following constraints?
1. There must be at least one person in the boat
2. There cannot be more than two people in the boat at any time
3. There cannot be more Tarts than Vicars on either bank otherwise the tarts will take
advantage the vicars and commit original sin.
Three coins
Three coins lie on a table in the order tails, heads, and tails. In precisely three moves
make them face either all heads or all tails.

Conceptual Graphs !
A conceptual graph (CG) is a graph representation for logic based on the semantic networks of
artificial intelligence.
A conceptual graph consists of concept nodes and relation nodes.

The concept nodes represent entities, attributes, states, and events

The relation nodes show how the concepts are interconnected
Conceptual Graphs are finite, connected, bipartite graphs.
Finite: because any graph (in 'human brain' or 'computer storage') can only have a finite number
of concepts and conceptual relations.
Connected: because two parts that are not connected would simply be called two conceptual
graphs.
Bipartite: because there are two different kinds of nodes: concepts and conceptual relations, and
every arc links a node of one kind to a node of another kind
Example
Following CG display form for John is going to Boston by bus.

The conceptual graph in Figure represents a typed or sorted version of logic. Each of the four
concepts has a type label, which represents the type of entity the concept refers to: Person, Go,

Boston, or Bus. Two of the concepts have names, which identify the referent: John or Boston.
Each of the three conceptual relations has a type label that represents the type of relation: agent
(Agnt), destination (Dest), or instrument (Inst). The CG as a whole indicates that the person John
is the agent of some instance of going, the city Boston is the destination, and a bus is the
instrument. Figure 1 can be translated to the following formula:

As this translation shows, the only logical operators used in Figure are conjunction and the
existential quantifier. Those two operators are the most common in translations from natural
languages, and many of the early semantic networks could not represent any others.

Compare and Contrast Associative Network and Conceptual Grpahs

Refer to Knowledgerepresentation.pdf on desktop