Resolution-based reasoning for fuzzy logic

  • Thomas J. Weigert
General Reasoning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 462)


A commonplace in the expert system literature has been that the resolution principle is inapplicable as an inference rule for expert systems. This claim has been due to the fact that many expert system applications inevitably have to reason about uncertain knowledge, and that the resolution principle cannot handle that kind of information. Indeed, there have been only few attempts to extend the application of theorem proving techniques and full clausal logic to reasoning under uncertainty. These approaches have made semantic assumptions which resulted in limitations and inflexibilities of the proposed inference mechanisms.

However, starting with Zadeh's “fuzzy logic” an impressive logical machinery has been developed for reasoning revolving around the uncertainty phenomenon of vagueness. Fuzzy logic allows for statements to have truth-values falling within a range between true and false. In this essay we shall discuss a similar uncertainty phenmenon, namely the endorsement of a statement. We present a new approach to fuzzy logic and reasoning under uncertainty using the resolution principle based on a new operator, the fuzzy operator. We present the fuzzy resolution principle for this logic and show its completeness as an inference rule.

Since the uncertainty phenomenon of endorsements is quite central to expert system development, we will claim that the logic presented here provides an elegant inference mechanism for those occasions, where a well understood semantics of one's reasoning mechanism is required.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    J.B. Adams, “Probabilistic Reasoning and Certainty Factors”, Math. Bios., 32, 1976, pp.177–186.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Bellmann, M. Giertz, “On the Analytic Formalism of the Theory of Fuzzy Sets, Inf. Sciences, 5, 1973, pp.149–156.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P.P. Bonissone, K.S. Decker, “Selecting Uncertainty Calculi and Granularity”, L.N. Kanal, J.F. Lemmer, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986, pp.217–247.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Buchanan, E.H. Shortliffe, Rule-Based Expert Systems—The Mycin Experts of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Chang, R.C. Lee, Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Cheeseman, “In Defense of Probability”, Proc. 9th IJCAI, Los Angeles, 1985, pp.1002–1009.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Cohen, Heuristic Reasoning about Uncertainty—An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. Dubois, H. Prade, “A Class of Fuzzy Measures Based on Triangular Norms”, Int. J. General Systems, 8, 1, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Dubois, H. Prade, “Criteria Aggregation and Ranking of Alternatives in the Framework of Fuzzy Set Theory”, H. Zimmerman, L.A. Zadeh, B.R. Gaines, Stud. Management Sci., 20, 1984, pp.209–240.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R.O. Duda, J. Gaschnig, P.E. Hart, “Model Design in the Prospector Consultant System for Mineral Exploration”, D. Mitchie, Expert Systems in the Microelectronic Age, Edinburgh, Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Ishizuka, N. Kanai, “Prolog-Elf Incorporating Fuzzy Logic”, Proc. 9th IJCAI, Los Angeles, 1985, pp.701–704.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Lee, “Fuzzy Logic and the Resolution Principle”, JACM, 19, 1, 1972, pp.109–119.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    X.H. Liu, J.P. Tsai, Th. Weigert, “A-resolution and the Interpretation of A-Implication in Fuzzy Operator Logic”, forthcoming in Information. Sci..Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Mukaidono, “Fuzzy Inference of Resolution Style”, R. Yager, Fuzzy Set and Possibility Theory, Pergamon, New York, 1982, pp.224–231.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    H. Prade, “A Combinatorial Approach to Approximate and Plausible Reasoning with Applications to Expert Systems”, IEEE Trans. Pattern Matching, 7, 3, 1985, pp.260–283.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    G. Shafer, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1976.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    E.H. Shortliffe, “Mycin—A Rule-Based Computer Program for Advising Physicians Regarding Antimicrobial Therapy Selection”, Tech. Rep. CS-74-465, Stanford Univ., Palo Alto, 1974.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    E.H. Shortliffe, B.G. Buchanan, “A Model of Inexact Reasoning in Medicine”, Math. Biosci., 23, 1975, pp.351–379.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    E.H. Shortliffe, B.G. Buchanan, E.A. Feigenbaum, “Knowledge Engineering for Medical Decision Making—A Review of Computer-Based Clinical Decision Aids”, Proc. IEEE, 67, 9, 1979, pp.1207–1224.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    P. Szlovits, S.G. Pauker, “Categorical and Probabilistic Reasoning in Medical Diagnosis”, Artificial Intelligence, 11, 1978, pp.115–144.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Th. Weigert, J.-P. Tsai, X.H. Liu, “Fuzzy Operator Logic and Fuzzy Resolution”, forthcoming in J. Autom. Reasoning.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    L.A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy Logic and Approximate Reasoning”, Synthese, 30, 1975, pp.407–428.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    L.A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy Sets as a Basis for a Theory of Possibility”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1, 1, 1978, pp.3–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Weigert
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute for Symbolic ComputationJohannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations