We present a domain-independent reasoning system that is able to perform hypothetical reasoning. A person working with our system may raise hypotheses, request the system to reason from them, adding the results obtained to a knowledge base, and may discard any of the hypotheses raised, which automatically makes inacessible to the reasoning program every piece of knowledge depending on the hypothesis (or hypotheses) discarded.
The novelty of our approach to hypothetical reasoning lies in the way that we switch reasoning contexts. The system is able to return to a previous state of reasoning, without performing any backtracking at all. With our approach the system maintains several contexts, defined by different and even competing sets of hypotheses, may switch back and forth between contexts, and may compare results obtained in different contexts.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.de Kleer J., “Choices without Backtracking”, Proc. AAAI-84, pp. 79–85.Google Scholar
- 3.Doyle J., “Truth Maintenance Systems for Problem Solving”, Technical Report AI-TR-419, Massachussets Institute of Technology, AI Lab., 1978Google Scholar
- 5.Doyle J., “The Ins and Outs of Reason Maintenance”, Proc. IJCAI-83, pp.349–351.Google Scholar
- 7.Goodwin J. W., “A Improved Algorithm for Non-Monotonic Dependency Net Update”, Research Report LiTH-MAT-R-82–2 3, Software Systems Research Center, Linkoping Institute of Technology, Sweden, August 1982.Google Scholar
- 8.Goodwin J.W., “WATSON: A Dependency Directed Inference System”, Proc. Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, pp.103–114, 1984.Google Scholar
- 9.Lemmon E.J., Beginning Logic, Hackett Publishing Company, 178.Google Scholar
- 10.Martins J., “Reasoning in Multiple Belief Spaces”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Technical Report 203, Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1983.Google Scholar
- 11.Martins J. and Shapiro S., “Reasoning in Multiple Belief Spaces”, Proc. IJCAI-83, pp.370–373.Google Scholar
- 12.Martins J. and Shapiro S., “A Model for Belief Revision”, Proc. Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, pp.241–294, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 1984.Google Scholar
- 13.McAllester D., “A Three-valued Truth Maintenance System”, Technical Report Memo 473, Massacussets Institute of Technology, AI Lab., 1978.Google Scholar
- 14.McAllester D., “An Outlook on Truth-Maintenance”, AI Memo 551, Massachussets Institute of Technology, AI Lab., 1980.Google Scholar
- 15.McCawley J.D., Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to know about Logic (but were ashamed to ask), The University of Chicago Press 1981.Google Scholar
- 16.McDermott D., “Data Dependencies on Inequalities”, Proc. AAAI-83, pp.266–269.Google Scholar
- 17.McKay D and Martins J., “Provisional SNePSLOG User’s Manual”, SNeRG Technical Note 4, Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1981.Google Scholar
- 18.Raulefs Pl, “Foundation of Expert Systems for Conceptional Design in Mechanical Engineering”, Memo SEKi-84–08, Fochbereich Informatik, Universitat Kaiserslautern, October 1984.Google Scholar
- 19.Rescher N., Hypothetical Reasoning, North-Holland Publishing Co., 1964.Google Scholar
- 20.Shapiro S., “The SNePS Semantic Network Processing System”, in Associative Networks, Findler (ed.), pp.179–203, Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
- 21.Shapiro S. and Wand M., “The Relevance of Relevance”, Technical Report No.46, Computer Science Department, Indiana University, 1976.Google Scholar
- 22.Thompson A., “Network Truth-Maintenance for Deduction and Modelling”, Proc. IJCAI-79, pp.877–879.Google Scholar