20,435 research outputs found

    Heuristics for a Default Logic Reasoning System

    Get PDF
    In Artificial Intelligence, Default Logic is recognized as a powerful framework for knowledge representation when one has to deal with incomplete information. Its expressive power is suitable for non monotonic reasoning, but the counterpart is its very high level of theoretical complexity. Today, some operational systems are able to deal with real world applications. However, finding a default logic extension in a practical way is not yet possible in whole generality. This paper which is an extended version of18 shows how heuristics such as Genetic Algorithms and Local Search techniques can be used and combined to build an automated default reasoning system. We give a general description of the required basic components and we exhibit experimental results.

    Combining Heuristics for Default Logic Reasoning Systems

    Get PDF
    In Artificial Intelligence, Default Logic is recognized as a powerful framework for knowledge representation when one has to deal with incomplete information. Its expressive power is suitable for nonmonotonic reasoning, but the counterpart is its very high level of theoretical complexity. Today, some operational systems are able to deal with real world applications. However finding a default logic extension in a practical way is not yet possible in whole generality. This paper shows how modern heuristics such as genetic algorithms and local search techniques can be used and combined to build an automated default reasoning system. We give a general description of the required basic components and we exhibit experimental result

    Bounded Rationality and Heuristics in Humans and in Artificial Cognitive Systems

    Get PDF
    In this paper I will present an analysis of the impact that the notion of “bounded rationality”, introduced by Herbert Simon in his book “Administrative Behavior”, produced in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In particular, by focusing on the field of Automated Decision Making (ADM), I will show how the introduction of the cognitive dimension into the study of choice of a rational (natural) agent, indirectly determined - in the AI field - the development of a line of research aiming at the realisation of artificial systems whose decisions are based on the adoption of powerful shortcut strategies (known as heuristics) based on “satisficing” - i.e. non optimal - solutions to problem solving. I will show how the “heuristic approach” to problem solving allowed, in AI, to face problems of combinatorial complexity in real-life situations and still represents an important strategy for the design and implementation of intelligent systems

    Negations in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a heuristic–analytic conflict

    Get PDF
    An experiment utilizing response time measures was conducted to test dominant processing strategies in syllogistic reasoning with the expanded quantifier set proposed by Roberts (2005). Through adding negations to existing quantifiers it is possible to change problem surface features without altering logical validity. Biases based on surface features such as atmosphere, matching, and the probability heuristics model (PHM; Chater & Oaksford, 1999; Wetherick & Gilhooly, 1995) would not be expected to show variance in response latencies, but participant responses should be highly sensitive to changes in the surface features of the quantifiers. In contrast, according to analytic accounts such as mental models theory and mental logic (e.g., Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991; Rips, 1994) participants should exhibit increased response times for negated premises, but not be overly impacted upon by the surface features of the conclusion. Data indicated that the dominant response strategy was based on a matching heuristic, but also provided evidence of a resource-demanding analytic procedure for dealing with double negatives. The authors propose that dual-process theories offer a stronger account of these data whereby participants employ competing heuristic and analytic strategies and fall back on a heuristic response when analytic processing fails

    SAT-based Explicit LTL Reasoning

    Full text link
    We present here a new explicit reasoning framework for linear temporal logic (LTL), which is built on top of propositional satisfiability (SAT) solving. As a proof-of-concept of this framework, we describe a new LTL satisfiability tool, Aalta\_v2.0, which is built on top of the MiniSAT SAT solver. We test the effectiveness of this approach by demonnstrating that Aalta\_v2.0 significantly outperforms all existing LTL satisfiability solvers. Furthermore, we show that the framework can be extended from propositional LTL to assertional LTL (where we allow theory atoms), by replacing MiniSAT with the Z3 SMT solver, and demonstrating that this can yield an exponential improvement in performance

    Matching bias in syllogistic reasoning: Evidence for a dual-process account from response times and confidence ratings

    Get PDF
    We examined matching bias in syllogistic reasoning by analysing response times, confidence ratings, and individual differences. Roberts’ (2005) “negations paradigm” was used to generate conflict between the surface features of problems and the logical status of conclusions. The experiment replicated matching bias effects in conclusion evaluation (Stupple & Waterhouse, 2009), revealing increased processing times for matching/logic “conflict problems”. Results paralleled chronometric evidence from the belief bias paradigm indicating that logic/belief conflict problems take longer to process than non-conflict problems (Stupple, Ball, Evans, & Kamal-Smith, 2011). Individuals’ response times for conflict problems also showed patterns of association with the degree of overall normative responding. Acceptance rates, response times, metacognitive confidence judgements, and individual differences all converged in supporting dual-process theory. This is noteworthy because dual-process predictions about heuristic/analytic conflict in syllogistic reasoning generalised from the belief bias paradigm to a situation where matching features of conclusions, rather than beliefs, were set in opposition to logic
    • 

    corecore