Advertisement

Computation and comparison of nonmonotonic skeptical inference relations induced by sets of ranking models for the realization of intelligent agents

  • Christoph Beierle
  • Steven Kutsch
Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Skeptical inference of an intelligent agent in the context of a knowledge base \(\mathcal {R}\) containing conditionals of the form If A then usually B can be defined with respect to a set of models of \(\mathcal {R}\). For the semantics of ranking functions that assign a degree of surprise to each possible world, we develop a method for comparing the inference relations induced by different sets of ranking models. Using this method, we address the problem of ensuring the correctness of approximating skeptical c-inference for \(\mathcal {R}\) by constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) over finite domains. Skeptical c-inference is defined by taking the set of all c-representations into account, where c-representations are ranking functions induced by impact vectors encoding the conditional impact on each possible world. By setting a bound for the maximal impact value, c-inference can be approximated by a resource-bounded inference operation. We investigate the concepts of regular and sufficient upper bounds for conditional impacts and how they can be employed for implementing c-inference as a finite domain constraint solving problem. While in general, determining a sufficient upper bound for these CSPs is an open problem, for a sequence of simple knowledge bases investigated only experimentally before, we prove that using the number of conditionals in \(\mathcal {R}\) as an upper bound correctly captures skeptical c-inference. The ideas presented in this paper are implemented in a software platform that realizes the core reasoning component of an intelligent agent.

Keywords

Conditional logic Ranking functions Nonmonotonic reasoning Skeptical inference c-inference Constraint satisfaction problem 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful comments that helped us to improve the article.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams EW (1975) The logic of conditionals: an application of probability to deductive logic. Synthese library. Springer Science+Business Media, DordrechtCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beierle C, Eichhorn C, Kern-Isberner G (2016) Skeptical inference based on c-representations and its characterization as a constraint satisfaction problem. In: Gyssens M, Simari GR (eds) Foundations of information and knowledge systems - 9th international symposium, FoIKS 2016, Linz, Austria, March 7–11, 2016. Proceedings, LNCS, vol 9616. Springer, pp 65–82Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beierle C, Eichhorn C, Kern-Isberner G, Kutsch S (2016) Skeptical, weakly skeptical, and credulous inference based on preferred ranking functions. In: ECAI-2016, vol 285. IOS Press, pp 1149–1157Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beierle C, Eichhorn C, Kern-Isberner G, Kutsch S (2018) Properties of skeptical c-inference for conditional knowledge bases and its realization as a constraint satisfaction problem. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-017-9571-9  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-017-9571-9 (to appear)
  5. 5.
    Beierle C, Eichhorn C, Kutsch S (2017) A practical comparison of qualitative inferences with preferred ranking models. KI 31(1):41–52Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beierle C, Kutsch S (2017) Comparison of inference relations defined over different sets of ranking functions. In: Antonucci A, Cholvy L, Papini O (eds) Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty - 14th European Conference, ECSQARU 2017, Lugano, Switzerland, July 10–14, 2017, Proceedings, vol 10369. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 225–235Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beierle C, Kutsch S (2017) Regular and sufficient bounds of finite domain constraints for skeptical c-inference. In: Benferhat S, Tabia K, Ali M (eds) Advances in artificial intelligence: from theory to practice, LNCS, vol 10350. Springer, pp 477–487Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benferhat S, Dubois D, Prade H (1999) Possibilistic and standard probabilistic semantics of conditional knowledge bases. J Log Comput 9(6):873–895MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois D, Prade H (1996) Conditional objects as nonmonotonic consequence relations. In: Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning: proceedings of the fourth international conference (KR’94). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, pp 170–177Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eichhorn C, Kern-Isberner G, Tse APP, Ragni M (2017) Constraint satisfaction problems can model rational reasoning. (to appear)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Finetti B (1937) La prévision, ses lois logiques et ses sources subjectives. Ann Inst H Poincaré 7(1):1–68. English translation in Studies in Subjective Probability, ed. H. Kyburg and H.E. Smokler, 1974, 93–158. New York: Wiley & SonsMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldszmidt M, Pearl J (1996) Qualitative probabilities for default reasoning, belief revision, and causal modeling. Artif Intell 84(1-2):57–112MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpern J (2005) Reasoning about uncertainty. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isberner MB, Kern-Isberner G (2016) A formal model of plausibility monitoring in language comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 29th international FLAIRS conference (FLAIRS’16), pp 662–667Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kern-Isberner G (2001) Conditionals in nonmonotonic reasoning and belief revision, LNAI, vol 2087. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kern-Isberner G (2004) A thorough axiomatization of a principle of conditional preservation in belief revision. Ann Math Artif Intell 40(1–2):127–164MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leopold T, Kern-Isberner G, Peters G (2008) Belief revision with reinforcement learning for interactive object recognition. In: Proceedings 18th European conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI’08Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis D (1973) Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Minock M, Kraus H (2002) Z-log: applying system-z. In: Proceedings of the 8th European conference on logics in artificial intelligence (JELIA’02), pp 545–548Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pearl J (1990) System Z: a natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Parikh R (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd conference on theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge (TARK1990). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, pp 121–135Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pinkas G (1995) Reasoning, nonmonotonicity and learning in connectionist networks that capture propositional knowledge. Artif Intell 77(2):203–247MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spohn W (1988) Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states. In: Harper W, Skyrms B (eds) Causation in decision, belief change, and statistics, II. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 105–134Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spohn W (2012) The laws of belief: ranking theory and its philosophical applications. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceFernUniversität in Hagen (University of Hagen)HagenGermany

Personalised recommendations