Advertisement

Methods of Automated Reasoning

A tutorial
  • Wolfgang Bibel
Part of the Springer Study Edition book series (SSE)

Abstract

This chapter introduces into various aspects and methods of the formalization and automation of processes involved in performing inferences. It views automated inferencing as a machine-oriented simulation of human reasoning. In this sense classical deductive methods for first-order logic like resolution and the connection method are introduced as a derived form of natural deduction. The wide range of phenomena known as non-monotonic reasoning is represented by a spectrum of technical approaches ranging from the closed-world assumption for data bases to the various forms of circumscription. Meta-reasoning is treated as a particularly important technique for modeling many significant features of reasoning including self-reference. Various techniques of reasoning about uncertainty are presented that have become particularly important in knowledge-based systems applications. Many other methods and techniques (like reasoning with time involved) could only briefly — if at all — be mentioned.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [BaF]
    Barr, A.B., Feigenbaum, E.A. (eds.), The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, 1, W. Kaufmann, Los Altos (1981).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [Bet]
    Beth, E.W., The foundations of mathematics, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1965).Google Scholar
  3. [Bil]
    Bibel, W., Programmieren in der Sprache der Prädikatenlogik, Habilitationsarbeit (abgelehnt), Technische Universität München (1975); shortened version: Prädikatives Programmieren, LNCS 33, Springer, Berlin, 274–283 (1975).Google Scholar
  4. [Bi2]
    Bibel, W., A uniform approach to programming, Report No. 7633, Technische Universität München, Abtlg. Mathematik (1976).Google Scholar
  5. [Bi3]
    Bibel, W., Automated theorem proving, Vieweg, Braunschweig (1982).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [Bi4]
    Bibel, W., Matings in matrices, CACM 26, 844–852 (1983).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [Bi5]
    Bibel, W., Knowledge representation from a deductive point of view, Proc. I IFAC Symposium Artificial Intelligence (V. M. Ponomaryov, ed.), Pergamon Press, Oxford, 37–48 (1984).Google Scholar
  8. [Bi6]
    Bibel, W., First-order reasoning about knowledge and belief, Proc. Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence and robotic control systems (I. Plander, ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 9–16 (1984).Google Scholar
  9. [Bi7]
    Bibel, W., Automated inferencing, J. Symbolic Computation 1, 245–260 (1985).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [Bi8]
    Bibel, W., A deductive solution for plan generation, New Generation Computing 4 (1986).Google Scholar
  11. [BoK]
    Bowen, K.A., Kowalski, R., Amalgamating language and meta-language in logic programming, Logic Programming (K.L. Clark, S.-A. Tärnlund, eds.), Academic Press, London, 153–172 (1982).Google Scholar
  12. [BoW]
    Bowen, K.A., Weinberg, T., A meta-level extension of PROLOG, Technical Report, CIS-85–1, Syracuse University (1985).Google Scholar
  13. [BdK]
    Brown, J.S., de Kleer, J., The origin, form, and logic of qualitative physical laws, IJCAI-83 (A. Bundy, ed.), Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1158–1169 (1984).Google Scholar
  14. [Bun]
    Bundy, A., The computer modelling of mathematical reasoning, Academic Press (1983).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [Cla]
    Clark, K.L., Negation as failure, Logic and Data Bases (H. Gallaire et al., eds.), Plenum Press, New York, 293–322 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [C1M]
    Clark, K.L., McCabe, F.G., The control facilities of IC-PROLOG, Expert systems in the Microelectronic Age (D. Michie, ed.), Edinburgh University Press (1979).Google Scholar
  17. [Coh]
    Cohen, P.R., Heuristic reasoning about uncertainty: an Artificial Intelligence approach, Pitman, Boston (1985).Google Scholar
  18. [deF]
    de Finetti, B., Theory of probability, vol. 1, Wiley, London (1974).Google Scholar
  19. [Do1]
    Doyle, J., A truth maintenance system, Artificial Intelligence 12, 231–272 (1979).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [Do2]
    Doyle, J., Circumscription and implicit definability, Non-monotonic Reasoning Workshop, AAAI, 57–67 (1984).Google Scholar
  21. [DHN]
    Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E., Nilsson, N.J., Subjective Bayesian methods for rule-based inference systems, Techn. Note 124, SRI International, AI Center, Menlo Park; also: Proc. NCC, AFIPS Press (1976).Google Scholar
  22. [EMR]
    Etherton, D.W., Mercer, R.E., Reiter, R., On the adequacy of predicate circumscription for closed-world reasoning, Proc. Non-monotonic Reasoning Workshop, AAAI, 70–81 (1984).Google Scholar
  23. [Fef]
    Feferman, S., Toward useful type-free theories I, JSL 49, 75–111 (1984).zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. [Gal]
    Gallagher, J., Transforming logic programs by specialising interpreters, Report, Dept. Computer Science, University of Dublin (1984).Google Scholar
  25. [GaL]
    Gallaire, H., Lasserre, C, Meta-level control for logic programming, Logic Programming (K.L. Clark, S.-A. Tärnlund, eds.), Academic Press, London (1982).Google Scholar
  26. [GeG]
    Genesereth, M.R., Ginsberg, M.L., Logic Programming, CACM 28, 933–941 (1985).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [Gen]
    Gentzen, G., Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen, Mathem. Zeitschr. 39, 176–210, (1935).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. [Gena]
    Gentzen, G., Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen, Mathem. Zeitschr. 39, 405–431 (1935).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. [Gly]
    Glymour, C, Independence assumptions and Bayesian updating, Artificial Intelligence 25, 95–99 (1985).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. [GoS]
    Gordon, J., Shortliffe, E.H., The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and its relevance to expert systems, Rule-based Expert Systems (B.G. Buchanan, E.H. Shortliffe, eds.), Addison-Wesley, Readings, ch. 13 (1984).Google Scholar
  31. [Gre]
    Green, C.C., Theorem proving by resolution as a basis for question-answering systems, Machine Intelligence 4, Elsevier, New York, 183 – 205 (1969).Google Scholar
  32. [Gro]
    Grosof, B., Default reasoning as circumscription, Proc. Non-monotonic Reasoning Workshop, AAAI, 115–124 (1984).Google Scholar
  33. [Haa]
    Haas, A.R., A syntactic theory of belief and action, Artificial Intelligence 28 (1986).Google Scholar
  34. [Hay]
    Hayes, P.J., Naive physics 1 — Ontology for liquids, Formal Theories of the Common-sense World (Hobbs, J.R., Moore, R.C., eds.), Ablex (1984).Google Scholar
  35. [Hin]
    Hintikka, J., Knowledge and belief: An introduction to the logic of the two notions, Cornell University Press (1962).Google Scholar
  36. [JLL]
    Jaffar, J., Lassez, J.-L., Lloyd, J., Completeness of the negation as failure rule, IJCAI-83 (A. Bundy, ed.), Kaufmann, Los Altos, 500–506 (1983).Google Scholar
  37. [Kad]
    Kadesch, R.R., Subjective inference with multiple evidence, Artificial Intelligence 28 (1986).Google Scholar
  38. [Kow]
    Kowalski, R.A., Sergot, M., A logic-based calculus of events, New Generation Computing 4, 67–95 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [Kri]
    Kripke, S., Semantical analysis of modal logic, Zeitschrift f. Mathem. Logik u. Grundlagen der Mathem. 9, 67–96 (1962).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. [Lev]
    Levesque, H., A logic of knowledge and active belief, Proc. AAAI-84 (1984).Google Scholar
  41. [Li1]
    Lifschitz, V., Computing circumscription, Proc. IJCAI-85, Kaufmann, Los Altos, 121–127 (1985).Google Scholar
  42. [Li2]
    Lifschitz, V., On the satisfiability of circumscription, Artificial Intelligence 28, 17–27 (1986).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. [Llo]
    Lloyd, J.W., Foundations of logic programming, Springer, Berlin (1984).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. [Mcl]
    McCarthy, J., First-order theories of individual concepts and propositions, Expert Systems in the Micro-electronic Age (D. Michie, ed.), Edinburgh University Press, 271–287 (1979).Google Scholar
  45. [Mc2]
    McCarthy, J., Circumscription — a form of non-monotonic reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13, 27–39 (1980).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. [Mc3]
    McCarthy, J., Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge, Proc. Non-monotonic Reasoning Workshop, AAAI, 295–324 (1984).Google Scholar
  47. [MiP]
    Minker, J., Perlis, D., Completeness results for circumscription, Artificial Intelligence 28, 29–42 (1986).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. [Moo]
    Moore, R.C., Semantical considerations on non-monotonic logic, IJCAI-83 (A. Bundy, ed.), Kaufmann, Los Altos, 272–279 (1983).Google Scholar
  49. [Pea]
    Pearl, J., On evidential reasoning in a hierarchy of hypothesis, Artificial Intelligence 28, 9–16 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [Per]
    Perlis, D., Languages with self-reference, Artificial Intelligence 25, 301–322 (1985).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. [Qui]
    Quinlan, J.R., Internal consistency in plausible reasoning systems, New Generation Computing 3, 157–180 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [Re1]
    Reiter, R., A logic for default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. [Re2]
    Reiter, R., Circumscription implies predicate completion (sometimes), Proc. AAAI-82, 418–420 (1982).Google Scholar
  54. [Re3]
    Reiter, R., Towards a logical reconstruction of relational database theory, On Conceptual Modelling: perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, databases, and programming languages (M.L. Brodie et al., eds.), Springer, Berlin, 191–238 (1983).Google Scholar
  55. [Sch]
    Schütte, K., Proof theory, Springer, Berlin (1977).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. [Sha]
    Shafer, G., A mathematical theory of evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. [She]
    Shepherdson, J.C., Negation as failure: A comparison of Clark’s completed data base and Reiter’s closed-world assumption, Report PM-84–01, School of Mathematics, University of Bristol (1984).Google Scholar
  58. [Sho]
    Shoham, Y., Ten requirements for a theory of change, New Generation Computing 3, 467–477 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [Tur]
    Turner, R., Logics for Artificial Intelligence, E. Horwood, Chichester (1984).Google Scholar
  60. [Wey]
    Weyrauch, R., Prolegomena to a theory of mechanized formal reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13, 133–197 (1980).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  61. [Win]
    Winston, P.H., Learning and reasoning by analogy, CACM 23, 689–703 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [Za1]
    Zadeh, L.A., A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages, Comp. & Maths. with Appls. 9, 149–184 (1983).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  63. [Za2]
    Zadeh, L.A., The role of fuzzy logic in the management of uncertainty in expert systems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11, 199–227 (1983).CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Bibel
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations