Cogex: A semantically and contextually enriched logic prover for question answering

AbstractThis paper presents the architecture and functionality of a logic prover designed for question answering. The approach transforms questions and answer passages into logic representations based on syntactic, semantic and contextual information. World knowledge supplements the linguistic, ontological, and temporal axioms supplied to the prover which renders a deep understanding of the relationship between the question and answer text. The trace of the proofs provides a basis for generating human comprehensible answer justifications. The results show that the prover boosts the performance of the Question Answering system on TREC 2004 questions by 12%

Human Machine Interaction

In this book, the reader will find a set of papers divided into two sections. The first section presents different proposals focused on the human-machine interaction development process. The second section is devoted to different aspects of interaction, with a special emphasis on the physical interaction

A Review of Causality for Learning Algorithms in Medical Image Analysis

Medical image analysis is a vibrant research area that offers doctors and medical practitioners invaluable insight and the ability to accurately diagnose and monitor disease. Machine learning provides an additional boost for this area. However, machine learning for medical image analysis is particularly vulnerable to natural biases like domain shifts that affect algorithmic performance and robustness. In this paper we analyze machine learning for medical image analysis within the framework of Technology Readiness Levels and review how causal analysis methods can fill a gap when creating robust and adaptable medical image analysis algorithms. We review methods using causality in medical imaging AI/ML and find that causal analysis has the potential to mitigate critical problems for clinical translation but that uptake and clinical downstream research has been limited so far.Comment: Accepted for publication at the Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging (MELBA) https://www.melba-journal.org/papers/2022:028.html". ; Paper ID: 2022:02

Pattern recognition beyond classification: An abductive framework for time series interpretation

Time series interpretation aims to provide an explanation of what is observed in terms of its underlying processes. The present work is based on the assumption that the common classification-based approaches to time series interpretation suffer from a set of inherent weaknesses, whose ultimate cause lies in the monotonic nature of the deductive reasoning paradigm. In this thesis we propose a new approach to this problem, based on the initial hypothesis that abductive reasoning properly accounts for the human ability to identify and characterize the patterns appearing in a time series. The result of this interpretation is a set of conjectures in the form of observations, organized into an abstraction hierarchy and explaining what has been observed. A knowledge-based framework and a set of algorithms for the interpretation task are provided, implementing a hypothesize-and-test cycle guided by an attentional mechanism. As a representative application domain, interpretation of the electrocardiogram allows us to highlight the strengths of the present approach in comparison with traditional classification-based approaches

08091 Abstracts Collection -- Logic and Probability for Scene Interpretation

From 25.2.2008 to Friday 29.2.2008, the Dagstuhl Seminar 08091 ``Logic and Probability for Scene Interpretation\u27\u27 was held in the International Conference and Research Center (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper

On a notion of abduction and relevance for first-order logic clause sets

I propose techniques to help with explaining entailment and non-entailment in first-order logic respectively relying on deductive and abductive reasoning. First, given an unsatisfiable clause set, one could ask which clauses are necessary for any possible deduction (\emph{syntactically relevant}), usable for some deduction (\emph{syntactically semi-relevant}), or unusable (\emph{syntactically irrelevant}). I propose a first-order formalization of this notion and demonstrate a lifting of this notion to the explanation of an entailment w.r.t some axiom set defined in some description logic fragments. Moreover, it is accompanied by a semantic characterization via \emph{conflict literals} (contradictory simple facts). From an unsatisfiable clause set, a pair of conflict literals are always deducible. A \emph{relevant} clause is necessary to derive any conflict literal, a \emph{semi-relevant} clause is necessary to derive some conflict literal, and an \emph{irrelevant} clause is not useful in deriving any conflict literals. It helps provide a picture of why an explanation holds beyond what one can get from the predominant notion of a minimal unsatisfiable set. The need to test if a clause is (syntactically) semi-relevant leads to a generalization of a well-known resolution strategy: resolution equipped with the set-of-support strategy is refutationally complete on a clause set $N$ and SOS $M$ if and only if there is a resolution refutation from $N\cup M$ using a clause in $M$. This result non-trivially improves the original formulation. Second, abductive reasoning helps find extensions of a knowledge base to obtain an entailment of some missing consequence (called observation). Not only that it is useful to repair incomplete knowledge bases but also to explain a possibly unexpected observation. I particularly focus on TBox abduction in \EL description logic (still first-order logic fragment via some model-preserving translation scheme) which is rather lightweight but prevalent in practice. The solution space can be huge or even infinite. So, different kinds of minimality notions can help sort the chaff from the grain. I argue that existing ones are insufficient, and introduce \emph{connection minimality}. This criterion offers an interpretation of Occam's razor in which hypotheses are accepted only when they help acquire the entailment without arbitrarily using axioms unrelated to the problem at hand. In addition, I provide a first-order technique to compute the connection-minimal hypotheses in a sound and complete way. The key technique relies on prime implicates. While the negation of a single prime implicate can already serve as a first-order hypothesis, a connection-minimal hypothesis which follows \EL syntactic restrictions (a set of simple concept inclusions) would require a combination of them. Termination by bounding the term depth in the prime implicates is provable by only looking into the ones that are also subset-minimal. I also present an evaluation on ontologies from the medical domain by implementing a prototype with SPASS as a prime implicate generation engine.Ich schlage Techniken vor, die bei der Erklärung von Folgerung und Nichtfolgerung in der Logik erster Ordnung helfen, die sich jeweils auf deduktives und abduktives Denken stützen. Erstens könnte man bei einer gegebenen unerfüllbaren Klauselmenge fragen, welche Klauseln für eine mögliche Deduktion notwendig (\emph{syntaktisch relevant}), für eine Deduktion verwendbar (\emph{syntaktisch semi-relevant}) oder unbrauchbar (\emph{syntaktisch irrelevant}). Ich schlage eine Formalisierung erster Ordnung dieses Begriffs vor und demonstriere eine Anhebung dieses Begriffs auf die Erklärung einer Folgerung bezüglich einer Reihe von Axiomen, die in einigen Beschreibungslogikfragmenten definiert sind. Außerdem wird sie von einer semantischen Charakterisierung durch \emph{Konfliktliteral} (widersprüchliche einfache Fakten) begleitet. Aus einer unerfüllbaren Klauselmenge ist immer ein Konfliktliteralpaar ableitbar. Eine \emph{relevant}-Klausel ist notwendig, um ein Konfliktliteral abzuleiten, eine \emph{semi-relevant}-Klausel ist notwendig, um ein Konfliktliteral zu generieren, und eine \emph{irrelevant}-Klausel ist nicht nützlich, um Konfliktliterale zu generieren. Es hilft, ein Bild davon zu vermitteln, warum eine Erklärung über das hinausgeht, was man aus der vorherrschenden Vorstellung einer minimalen unerfüllbaren Menge erhalten kann. Die Notwendigkeit zu testen, ob eine Klausel (syntaktisch) semi-relevant ist, führt zu einer Verallgemeinerung einer bekannten Resolutionsstrategie: Die mit der Set-of-Support-Strategie ausgestattete Resolution ist auf einer Klauselmenge $N$ und SOS $M$ widerlegungsvollständig, genau dann wenn es eine Auflösungswiderlegung von $N\cup M$ unter Verwendung einer Klausel in $M$ gibt. Dieses Ergebnis verbessert die ursprüngliche Formulierung nicht trivial. Zweitens hilft abduktives Denken dabei, Erweiterungen einer Wissensbasis zu finden, um eine implikantion einer fehlenden Konsequenz (Beobachtung genannt) zu erhalten. Es ist nicht nur nützlich, unvollständige Wissensbasen zu reparieren, sondern auch, um eine möglicherweise unerwartete Beobachtung zu erklären. Ich konzentriere mich besonders auf die TBox-Abduktion in dem leichten, aber praktisch vorherrschenden Fragment der Beschreibungslogik \EL, das tatsächlich ein Logikfragment erster Ordnung ist (mittels eines modellerhaltenden Übersetzungsschemas). Der Lösungsraum kann riesig oder sogar unendlich sein. So können verschiedene Arten von Minimalitätsvorstellungen helfen, die Spreu vom Weizen zu trennen. Ich behaupte, dass die bestehenden unzureichend sind, und führe \emph{Verbindungsminimalität} ein. Dieses Kriterium bietet eine Interpretation von Ockhams Rasiermesser, bei der Hypothesen nur dann akzeptiert werden, wenn sie helfen, die Konsequenz zu erlangen, ohne willkürliche Axiome zu verwenden, die nichts mit dem vorliegenden Problem zu tun haben. Außerdem stelle ich eine Technik in Logik erster Ordnung zur Berechnung der verbindungsminimalen Hypothesen in zur Verfügung korrekte und vollständige Weise. Die Schlüsseltechnik beruht auf Primimplikanten. Während die Negation eines einzelnen Primimplikant bereits als Hypothese in Logik erster Ordnung dienen kann, würde eine Hypothese des Verbindungsminimums, die den syntaktischen Einschränkungen von \EL folgt (einer Menge einfacher Konzeptinklusionen), eine Kombination dieser beiden erfordern. Die Terminierung durch Begrenzung der Termtiefe in den Primimplikanten ist beweisbar, indem nur diejenigen betrachtet werden, die auch teilmengenminimal sind. Außerdem stelle ich eine Auswertung zu Ontologien aus der Medizin vor, Domäne durch die Implementierung eines Prototyps mit SPASS als Primimplikant-Generierungs-Engine

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS’ ABDUCTIVE REASONING IN SOLVING ALGEBRA PROBLEMS

When students solve an algebra problem, students try to deduce the facts in the problem. This step is imperative, students can draw conclusions from the facts and devise a plan to solve the problem. Drawing conclusions from facts is called reasoning. Some kinds of reasoning are deductive, inductive, and abductive. This article explores the characteristics of some types of abductive reasoning used by mathematics education students in problem-solving related to using facts on the problems. Fifty-eight students were asked to solve an algebra problem. It was found that the student’s solutions could be grouped into four types of abductive reasoning. From each group, one student was interviewed to have more details on the types. First, the creative conjectures type, the students can solve the problems and develop new ideas related to the problems; second, fact optimization type, the students make conjecture of the answer, then confirm it by deductive reasoning; third, factual error type, students use facts outside of the problems to solve it, but the facts are wrong; and fourth,  mistaken fact type, the students assume the questionable thing as a given fact. Therefore, teachers should encourage the students to use creative conjectures and fact optimization when learning mathematics