This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

UNCERTAINTY

But in many problem domains.SYMBOLIC REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY Story so far We have described techniques for reasoning with a complete. . it is not possible to create such models. consistent and unchanging model of the world. So here we are going to explore techniques for solving problems with incomplete and uncertain models.

SYMBOLIC REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY Introduction to Non-monotonic Reasoning The ABC Murder Mystery example Non monotonic reasoning is one in which the axioms and/or the rules of inference are extended to make it possible to reason with incomplete information. however. or not believed to be either. . the property that . a statement is either believed to be true. at any given moment. Statistical Reasoning : in which the representation is extended to allow some kind of numeric measure of certainty(rather than true or false) to be associated with each statement. These systems preserve. believed to be false.

Such techniques are complicated by the fact that the belief spaces of various agents. are sufficiently similar that it is unacceptably in efficient to represent them as completely separate knowledge bases. .SYMBOLIC REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY At times we need to maintain many parallel belief spaces. although not identical. each of which would correspond to the beliefs of one agent.

All this leads to monotonicity. .MONOTONICITY Conventional reasoning systems. The only way it can change is that new facts can be added as they become available. It is consistent. It is complete with respect to domain of interest. such as FOPL are designed to work with information that has three important properties.

Non monotonic reasoning systems. If any of these properties is not satisfied. conventional logic based reasoning systems become inadequate. are designed to be able to solve problems in which all of these properties may be missing Issues to be addressed How can the knowledge base be extended to allow inferences to be made on the basis of lack of knowledge as well as on the presence of it? How can the knowledge base be updated properly when a new fact is added to the system(or when the old one is removed)? How can knowledge be used to help resolve conflicts when there are several in consistent non monotonic inferences that could be drawn? .

Provide the basis for a practical implementation of this kind of reasoning. Logic for monotonic reasoning Monotonicity is kind of a definition to FOPL. No single formalization has all the desired properties. Corresponds to our intuitions about how this kind of reasoning works. we have to find some alternative to support non monotonic reasoning. Provide a way to say that we prefer to believe in some models rather than others. We want to find a formalism that does all of the following things Define the set of possible worlds that could exist given the facts that we do have. .

We want to draw conclusions based on what is most likely to be true. Default Reasoning We use non monotonic reasoning to perform. what is commonly called Default Reasoning. Two approaches are Nonmonotonic Logic Default Logic Two common kinds of nonmonotonic reasoning that can be defined in these logics : Abduction Inheritance .

y) WillDefend(x. if x and y are related and if the fact that x gets along with y is consistent with everything else that is believed. which can be read as “is consistent.y : Related(x. one important issue that must be resolved if we want our theory to be even semi decidable.” Vx.y) For all x and y. we must decide what “is consistent ” means. then conclude that x will defend y. . Non Monotonic Logic(NML) It is one in which the language of FOPL is augmented with a modal operator M. If we are allowing statements in this form.y) ^ M GetAlong(x.

we allow inference rules of this form A:B C The rule should be read as – If A is provable and it is consistent to assume B. In this approach. Default Logic An alternative logic for performing default-based reasoning is Reiter’s Default Logic(DL) in which a new class of inference rules is introduced. then conclude C .

Deriving conclusions in this way is this another form of default reasoning. do so. Abduction Standard logic performs deductions. We call this abductive reasoning. for any expression A & B. if it is consistent to assume A. Given 2 axioms Vx : A(x) B(x) A(C) We conclude B(C) using deduction Vx : Measels Spots(x) To conclude that if somebody has spots will surely have measels is incorrect. but it may be the best guess we can make about what is going on. To accurately define abductive reasoning we may state that – Given 2 wff’s AB and B. .

5-10) [This is a rule] Adult-Male(x) : --.5-10) height(x.Baseball-Player(x) ^ height (x.5-10) and so on .5-10) [ Rule] height(x.SYMBOLIC REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY Inheritance A rule for the Baseball Player can be as Baseball-Player(x) : height(x.aspect1) height(x.6-1) [This is a rule] Adult-Male(x) : height(x.5-10) Vx: Adult-Male(x) ^ --AB(x.6-1) height(x.

assume that the only true statements are those that necessarily must be true in order to maintain the consistency. These methods are based on some variant of the idea of a minimal model. We will define a model to be minimal if there are no other models in which fewer things are true. Minimalist Reasoning We describe methods for saying a very specific and highly useful class of things that are generally true. The idea behind using minimal models as a basis for nonmonotonic reasoning about the world is the following – There are many fewer true statements than false ones. Therefore. If something is true and relevant it makes sense to assume that it has been entered into our knowledge base. .

unrevealed facts in murder case It is a purely syntactic reasoning process. The assumptions are not always true in the world. some parts of the world are not realistically “closable”. it can fail to produce an appropriate answer for either of the two reasons. Thus. . Airline example Although the CWA is both simple & powerful. Eg. The Closed World Assumption CWA says that the only objects that satisfy any predicate P are those that must. A company’s employee database. the result depend on the form of assertions that are provided .

Even uncertain knowledge can be solved using forward & backward reasoning. Treat non monotonically derivable conclusions the same way monotonically derivable ones are handled. Augment a Problem. Reason backward to determine whether some expressions P is true? .Solver How to write a program that solves problems using axioms. As a result there are 2 approaches to this kind of problem solving Reason forward from what is known. Everything is same as monotonic except that here we have forward chaining rules but with UNLESS clause.

Support a kind of debate in which an attempt is made to construct arguments both in favor of P and opposed to it. Augment a Problem. .Solver Reason backward to determine whether some expressions P is true?(or perhaps to find a bindings for its variables that make it true) Non-monotonic reasoning systems that support this kind of reasoning may do either or both of the following Allow default(unless) clauses in backward ruling.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Symbolic Reasoning cha 7
- Statistical Reasoning cha 8
- Strong Slot & Filler Structure cha 10
- Time-Situated Agency - Active Logic and Intention Formation, Michael L. Anderson Et Al
- Mental Models and Human Reasoning
- KnowlegeRespentation.pdf
- Logical Reasoning
- Knowledge Representation
- LOGIC Syllabus 2013 14
- What is a Knowledge Representation-Davis
- 04-Reasoning
- Logic
- Deductive reasoning.pdf
- 2009dedreas
- aimag-final
- Aimag Final
- Statistical Inference
- Non-monotonic Reasoning.pdf
- NML
- Critical Reasoning
- Peter K Schotch-Introduction to Logic and Its
- Definitions of Logic
- Oetke
- ai2004-NML
- Dinnaga and Metal Modes-A Reconstruction
- Philosophy East and West
- JIP Ganeri.pdf
- Reasoning
- Poincaré Against the Logicians
- Logic
- 14864_7. Symbolic Reasoning Under Uncertainty

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd