Understanding of emotions based on counterfactual reasoning in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

The understanding of emotions based on counterfactual reasoning was studied in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders (n = 71) and in typically developing children (n = 71), aged 6-12 years. Children were presented with eight stories about two protagonists who experienced the same positive or negative outcome, either due to their own action or by default. Relative to the comparison group, children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder were poor at explaining emotions based on downward counterfactual reasoning (i.e. contentment and relief). There were no group differences in upward counterfactual reasoning (i.e. disappointment and regret). In the comparison group, second-order false-belief reasoning was related to children's understanding of second-order counterfactual emotions (i.e. regret and relief), while children in the high-functioning autism spectrum disorder group relied more on their general intellectual skills. Results are discussed in terms of the different functions of counterfactual reasoning about emotion and the cognitive style of children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. © The Author(s) 2012

A predicated network formalism for commonsense reasoning.

Chiu, Yiu Man Edmund.Thesis submitted in: December 1999.Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2000.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 269-248).Abstracts in English and Chinese.Abstract --- p.iAcknowledgments --- p.iiiChapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1Chapter 1.1 --- The Beginning Story --- p.2Chapter 1.2 --- Background --- p.3Chapter 1.2.1 --- History of Nonmonotonic Reasoning --- p.3Chapter 1.2.2 --- Formalizations of Nonmonotonic Reasoning --- p.6Chapter 1.2.3 --- Belief Revision --- p.13Chapter 1.2.4 --- Network Representation of Knowledge --- p.17Chapter 1.2.5 --- Reference from Logic Programming --- p.21Chapter 1.2.6 --- Recent Work on Network-type Automatic Reasoning Sys- tems --- p.22Chapter 1.3 --- A Novel Inference Network Approach --- p.23Chapter 1.4 --- Objectives --- p.23Chapter 1.5 --- Organization of the Thesis --- p.24Chapter 2 --- The Predicate Inference Network PIN --- p.25Chapter 2.1 --- Preliminary Terms --- p.26Chapter 2.2 --- Overall Structure --- p.27Chapter 2.3 --- Object Layer --- p.29Chapter 2.3.1 --- Virtual Object --- p.31Chapter 2.4 --- Predicate Layer --- p.33Chapter 2.4.1 --- Node Values --- p.34Chapter 2.4.2 --- Information Source --- p.35Chapter 2.4.3 --- Belief State --- p.36Chapter 2.4.4 --- Predicates --- p.37Chapter 2.4.5 --- Prototypical Predicates --- p.37Chapter 2.4.6 --- Multiple Inputs for a Single Belief --- p.39Chapter 2.4.7 --- External Program Call --- p.39Chapter 2.5 --- Variable Layer --- p.40Chapter 2.6 --- Inter-Layer Links --- p.42Chapter 2.7 --- Chapter Summary --- p.43Chapter 3 --- Computation for PIN --- p.44Chapter 3.1 --- Computation Functions for Propagation --- p.45Chapter 3.1.1 --- Computational Functions for Combinative Links --- p.45Chapter 3.1.2 --- Computational Functions for Alternative Links --- p.49Chapter 3.2 --- Applying the Computation Functions --- p.52Chapter 3.3 --- Relations Represented in PIN --- p.55Chapter 3.3.1 --- Relations Represented by Combinative Links --- p.56Chapter 3.3.2 --- Relations Represented by Alternative Links --- p.59Chapter 3.4 --- Chapter Summary --- p.61Chapter 4 --- Dynamic Knowledge Update --- p.62Chapter 4.1 --- Operations for Knowledge Update --- p.63Chapter 4.2 --- Logical Expression --- p.63Chapter 4.3 --- Applicability of Operators --- p.64Chapter 4.4 --- Add Operation --- p.65Chapter 4.4.1 --- Add a fully instantiated single predicate proposition with no virtual object --- p.66Chapter 4.4.2 --- Add a fully instantiated pure disjunction --- p.68Chapter 4.4.3 --- Add a fully instantiated expression which is a conjunction --- p.71Chapter 4.4.4 --- Add a human biased relation --- p.74Chapter 4.4.5 --- Add a single predicate expression with virtual objects --- p.76Chapter 4.4.6 --- Add a IF-THEN rule --- p.80Chapter 4.5 --- Remove Operation --- p.88Chapter 4.5.1 --- Remove a Belief --- p.88Chapter 4.5.2 --- Remove a Rule --- p.91Chapter 4.6 --- Revise Operation --- p.94Chapter 4.6.1 --- Revise a Belief --- p.94Chapter 4.6.2 --- Revise a Rule --- p.96Chapter 4.7 --- Consistency Maintenance --- p.97Chapter 4.7.1 --- Logical Suppression --- p.98Chapter 4.7.2 --- Example on Handling Inconsistent Information --- p.99Chapter 4.8 --- Chapter Summary --- p.102Chapter 5 --- Knowledge Query --- p.103Chapter 5.1 --- Domains of Quantification --- p.104Chapter 5.2 --- Reasoning through Recursive Rules --- p.109Chapter 5.2.1 --- Infinite Looping Control --- p.110Chapter 5.2.2 --- Proof of the finite termination of recursive rules --- p.111Chapter 5.3 --- Query Functions --- p.117Chapter 5.4 --- Type I Queries --- p.119Chapter 5.4.1 --- Querying a Simple Single Predicate Proposition (Type I) --- p.122Chapter 5.4.2 --- Querying a Belief with Logical Connective(s) (Type I) --- p.128Chapter 5.5 --- Type II Queries --- p.132Chapter 5.5.1 --- Querying Single Predicate Expressions (Type II) --- p.134Chapter 5.5.2 --- Querying an Expression with Logical Connectives (Type II) --- p.143Chapter 5.6 --- Querying an Expression with Virtual Objects --- p.152Chapter 5.6.1 --- Type I Queries Involving Virtual Object --- p.152Chapter 5.6.2 --- Type II Queries involving Virtual Objects --- p.156Chapter 5.7 --- Chapter Summary --- p.157Chapter 6 --- Uniqueness and Finite Termination --- p.159Chapter 6.1 --- Proof Structure --- p.160Chapter 6.2 --- Proof for Completeness and Finite Termination of Domain Search- ing Procedure --- p.161Chapter 6.3 --- Proofs for Type I Queries --- p.167Chapter 6.3.1 --- Proof for Single Predicate Expressions --- p.167Chapter 6.3.2 --- Proof of Type I Queries on Expressions with Logical Con- nectives --- p.172Chapter 6.3.3 --- General Proof for Type I Queries --- p.174Chapter 6.4 --- Proofs for Type II Queries --- p.175Chapter 6.4.1 --- Proof for Type II Queries on Single Predicate Expressions --- p.176Chapter 6.4.2 --- Proof for Type II Queries on Disjunctions --- p.178Chapter 6.4.3 --- Proof for Type II Queries on Conjunctions --- p.179Chapter 6.4.4 --- General Proof for Type II Queries --- p.181Chapter 6.5 --- Proof for Queries Involving Virtual Objects --- p.182Chapter 6.6 --- Uniqueness and Finite Termination of PIN Queries --- p.183Chapter 6.7 --- Chapter Summary --- p.184Chapter 7 --- Lifschitz's Benchmark Problems --- p.185Chapter 7.1 --- Structure --- p.186Chapter 7.2 --- Default Reasoning --- p.186Chapter 7.2.1 --- Basic Default Reasoning --- p.186Chapter 7.2.2 --- Default Reasoning with Irrelevant Information --- p.187Chapter 7.2.3 --- Default Reasoning with Several Defaults --- p.188Chapter 7.2.4 --- Default Reasoning with a Disabled Default --- p.190Chapter 7.2.5 --- Default Reasoning in Open Domain --- p.191Chapter 7.2.6 --- Reasoning about Unknown Exceptions I --- p.193Chapter 7.2.7 --- Reasoning about Unknown Exceptions II --- p.194Chapter 7.2.8 --- Reasoning about Unknown Exceptions III --- p.196Chapter 7.2.9 --- Priorities between Defaults --- p.198Chapter 7.2.10 --- Priorities between Instances of a Default --- p.199Chapter 7.2.11 --- Reasoning about Priorities --- p.199Chapter 7.3 --- Inheritance --- p.200Chapter 7.3.1 --- Linear Inheritance --- p.200Chapter 7.3.2 --- Tree-Structured Inheritance --- p.202Chapter 7.3.3 --- One-Step Multiple Inheritance --- p.203Chapter 7.3.4 --- Multiple Inheritance --- p.204Chapter 7.4 --- Uniqueness of Names --- p.205Chapter 7.4.1 --- Unique Names Hypothesis for Objects --- p.205Chapter 7.4.2 --- Unique Names Hypothesis for Functions --- p.206Chapter 7.5 --- Reasoning about Action --- p.206Chapter 7.6 --- Autoepistemic Reasoning --- p.206Chapter 7.6.1 --- Basic Autoepistemic Reasoning --- p.206Chapter 7.6.2 --- Autoepistemic Reasoning with Incomplete Information --- p.207Chapter 7.6.3 --- Autoepistemic Reasoning with Open Domain --- p.207Chapter 7.6.4 --- Autoepistemic Default Reasoning --- p.208Chapter 8 --- Comparison with PROLOG --- p.214Chapter 8.1 --- Introduction of PROLOG --- p.215Chapter 8.1.1 --- Brief History --- p.215Chapter 8.1.2 --- Structure and Inference --- p.215Chapter 8.1.3 --- Why Compare PIN with Prolog --- p.216Chapter 8.2 --- Representation Power --- p.216Chapter 8.2.1 --- Close World Assumption and Negation as Failure --- p.216Chapter 8.2.2 --- Horn Clauses --- p.217Chapter 8.2.3 --- Quantification --- p.218Chapter 8.2.4 --- Build-in Functions --- p.219Chapter 8.2.5 --- Other Representation Issues --- p.220Chapter 8.3 --- Inference and Query Processing --- p.220Chapter 8.3.1 --- Unification --- p.221Chapter 8.3.2 --- Resolution --- p.222Chapter 8.3.3 --- Computation Efficiency --- p.225Chapter 8.4 --- Knowledge Updating and Consistency Issues --- p.227Chapter 8.4.1 --- PIN and AGM Logic --- p.228Chapter 8.4.2 --- Knowledge Merging --- p.229Chapter 8.5 --- Chapter Summary --- p.229Chapter 9 --- Conclusion and Discussion --- p.230Chapter 9.1 --- Conclusion --- p.231Chapter 9.1.1 --- General Structure --- p.231Chapter 9.1.2 --- Representation Power --- p.231Chapter 9.1.3 --- Inference --- p.232Chapter 9.1.4 --- Dynamic Update and Consistency --- p.233Chapter 9.1.5 --- Soundness and Completeness Versus Efficiency --- p.233Chapter 9.2 --- Discussion --- p.234Chapter 9.2.1 --- Different Selection Criteria --- p.234Chapter 9.2.2 --- Link Order --- p.235Chapter 9.2.3 --- Inheritance Reasoning --- p.236Chapter 9.3 --- Future Work --- p.237Chapter 9.3.1 --- Implementation --- p.237Chapter 9.3.2 --- Application --- p.237Chapter 9.3.3 --- Probabilistic and Fuzzy PIN --- p.238Chapter 9.3.4 --- Temporal Reasoning --- p.238Bibliography --- p.23

KR3^3: An Architecture for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Robotics

This paper describes an architecture that combines the complementary strengths of declarative programming and probabilistic graphical models to enable robots to represent, reason with, and learn from, qualitative and quantitative descriptions of uncertainty and knowledge. An action language is used for the low-level (LL) and high-level (HL) system descriptions in the architecture, and the definition of recorded histories in the HL is expanded to allow prioritized defaults. For any given goal, tentative plans created in the HL using default knowledge and commonsense reasoning are implemented in the LL using probabilistic algorithms, with the corresponding observations used to update the HL history. Tight coupling between the two levels enables automatic selection of relevant variables and generation of suitable action policies in the LL for each HL action, and supports reasoning with violation of defaults, noisy observations and unreliable actions in large and complex domains. The architecture is evaluated in simulation and on physical robots transporting objects in indoor domains; the benefit on robots is a reduction in task execution time of 39% compared with a purely probabilistic, but still hierarchical, approach.Comment: The paper appears in the Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014