Retention to Describe Knowledge of Complex Character and Its Formalization in Category Theory

  • A. V. Zhozhikashvily
  • V. L. StefanukEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 874)


Knowledge based computer systems may be designed for many environments, demonstrating different patterns of behavior. Though the inferences obtained may be similar, the use of the inferences may require some supplementary information directly related to the subject domain properties. For such complex cases a concept of retention is proposed in this paper intended for applications to a wide variety of situations, where an intelligent system may depend upon complex external conditions. Examples of systems designed by the authors are provided that support this new concept. In conclusion, an attempt to formalize this concept in the language of Category Theory is provided.


Retention Environment Dynamic systems Dynamic and Static Knowledge Autonomic Systems Lattice Monoid Defeasible reasoning 



We wish to express many thanks to anonymous reviewers for their valuable remarks that let us to improve the final paper.

The research was partially supported with Russian Fond for Basic Research, grants N 18-07-00736 and N 17-29-07053.


  1. 1.
    Stefanuk, V.L.: The behavior of quasi-static expert systems in changing fuzzy environment. In: Proceeding of 4th National Conference with International Participation Artificial Intelligence 1994, Rybynsk, vol. 1, pp. 199–203 (1994). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stefanuk, V.L.: Dynamic expert systems. Kybernetes. Int. J. Syst. Cybern. 29(5), 702—709 (2000). MCB University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhozhikashvily, F.V., Stefanuk, V.L.: Multiple categories for dynamic production system description. Theory Syst. Control 5, 71–76 (2008). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. In: Adler, J.E., Rips, L.J. (eds.) Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations, p. 31. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vagin, V.N., Morosin, O.L.: Argumentation in intelligent decision support systems. J. Inf.-Measur. Control Syst. 11(6), 29–36 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vagin, V.N., et al.: Exact and Plausible Reasoning in Intelligent Systems, p. 704. Fizmatlit, Moscow (2004). (in Russian). Edited by Vagin, V.N., Pospelov, D.AGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patrick, H.: The frame problem and related problems in artificial intelligence. University of Edinburgh (1971)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stefanuk, V.L., Zhozhikashvily, F.V.: Collaborating Computer: Problems, Theory, Applications. Nauka, Moscow (2007). (In Russian)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Birkhoff, G.: Lattice Theory, 3rd edn. American Mathematical Society, Col Pub, Providence (1967)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1984). Edited by Buchanan, B.G., Shortliffe, E.HGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stefanuk, V.L.: Some aspects of expert system theory. Sov. J. Comp. Sci. (Tech. Kibernet.) 2, 85–91 (1987). MoscowGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobson, N.: Basic Algebra 1, 2nd ed., Dover (2009). ISBN 978-0-486-47189-1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information Transmission ProblemsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Peoples’ Friendship University of RussiaMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations