Skip to main content

Modeling commonsense rules in an inference network

  • Neural Nets and Uncertainity II
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
PRICAI'96: Topics in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1114))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 115 Accesses

Abstract

In commonsense reasoning, conditional statements of the form “IF condition(s) THEN conclusion(s)” are the most common and important constructions. While material implication is generally used in classical logic based belief representation systems, its dual implication could be semantically too strong for expressing commonsense IF-THEN rules because not all contributing conditions of a rule can be expressed (the Qualification Problem [18]) and the negation of conclusions do not always imply the negation of the conditions. This paper studies a hybrid neural-symbolic belief representation system called Neural-Logic Belief Network (NLBN) [14] where IF-THEN rules can be more realistically captured for commonsense reasoning. Deduction of an IF-THEN rule in this formalism is considered as information flow from the condition(s) to the conclusion(s). In this system, the strength of conclusions can be modeled by using individual rule mapping functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ernest Wilcox Adams. Logic of Conditionals: an Application of Probability to Deductive Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C. E. Alchourron, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510–530, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Richard Boyd, Philip Gasper, and J. D. Trout, editors. The Philosophy of Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque, editors. Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bruce G. Buchanan and Edward H. Shortliffe. Rule-Based Expert Systems — The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jon Doyle. A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence J., 12:231–272, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Peter Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson. Nonmonotonic inferences based on expectations. Artificial Intelligence J., 65:197–245, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Matehew L. Ginsberg, editor. Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie. The C Programming Language. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. K. Lewis. Counterfactuals. Blackwell, Oxford, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boon Toh Low. Reasoning about Beliefs: An Inference Network Approach. PhD thesis, Basser Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Boon Toh Low. A subsumptive inference network for belief representation. In proceedings of the Third Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Boon Toh Low and Norman Y. Foo. A network formalism for commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australian Computer Science Conference, pages 425–434, Brisbane, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Boon Toh Low and Norman Y. Foo. Competitive voting semantics for neural-net decision functions. In Proceedings of the Second Singapore International Conference on Intelligent Systems, SPICIS'94, Pages 225–230, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Witold Lukaszewicz. Two results on default logic. In Proceedings of 9th IJCAI, pages 459–461, Los Angeles, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  17. John McCarthy. Circumscription: A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence J., 13:27–39, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  18. John McCarthy and Patrick J. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltxer and D. Mitchie, editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Drew McDermott. AI, logic and the frame problem. Proceedings of the Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence Workshop, pages 105–118, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Donald Michie, editor. Introductory Readings in Expert Systems. Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, New York, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  21. George A. Miller. Trends and debates in cognitive psychology. Cognition, 10:215–225, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  22. D. Nute. Defeasible reasoning and decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 4:97–110, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence J., 13:81–132, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Abdul Satta and R. Goebel. Constraint satisfaction as hypothetical reasoning. In Proceedings of AAAI'92, Cancun, Mexico, 1992. AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jude W. Shavlik and Thomas G. Dietterich, editors. Readings in Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pei Zhuang Wang. Fuzzy Sets and Falling Shadows of Random Sets. Beijing Normal University Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lotfi A. Zadeh. Knowledge representation in fuzzy logic. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1(1):89–100, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Norman Foo Randy Goebel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Low, B.T. (1996). Modeling commonsense rules in an inference network. In: Foo, N., Goebel, R. (eds) PRICAI'96: Topics in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1114. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61532-6_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61532-6_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61532-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68729-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics