Abductive reasoning

About: Abductive reasoning is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1917 publications have been published within this topic receiving 44645 citations. The topic is also known as: abduction & abductive inference.

Multi-agent Planning with Confidentiality (Extended Abstract)

Abstract: Distributed planning has seen a wide range of techniques aiming to address problems such as distributed plan formation and distributed plan execution. Common to these techniques is the notion of Multi-Agent Planning (MAP) as a combination of planning and coordination by de Weerdt et al. [2]. Among the three types of MAP problems summarised by Durfee [3], distributed planning for distributed plans is considered to be the most challenging. The key issue to tackle is the plan merging, which concerns about resolving potential conflicts (negative interactions) between individual plans (sequences of actions) of the agents. A more complex version of the problem that has many real world examples, is that where agents need to maintain confidential information such as private knowledge, and/or do not wish to expose their individual plans. Such confidentiality constraints may make the central/direct analysis of action interactions impossible. This paper focuses on the task of distributed planning for distributed plans with confidentiality. Abductive Reasoning (AR) is a special type of reasoning technique that can generate hypotheses to explain given observations. When combined with Event Calculus [6] (EC), it can be used for planning [8] where actions and goals are viewed as hypotheses and observations respectively. This approach is particularly suitable for non-classical planning problems involving, for instance, explicit time (e.g. actions with duration), concurrent actions or extended goals [5]. The inherent logical semantic of the framework allows properties of MAP such as the soundness to be proven. A distributed version of AR, called DARE [7], can be used as a unified framework for distributed planning. Its direct use would see plan construction, goal refinement and allocation handled by the Global Abductive Phase, and negative interactions analysis and resolution by the Global Consistency Phase. During the planning process, the plan (actions as hypotheses) would be collected and passed around the agents. However, by doing so confidentiality may not be preserved. This paper shows how DARE can be extended to allow agents to collaboratively construct consistent sub-plans for a given global goal without exposing them. The idea is that during the local plan construction, each agent collects the

Word sense ranking based on semantic similarity and graph entropy

Abstract: In this paper we propose a system for the recommendation of tagged pictures obtained from the Web The system, driven by user feedback, executes an abductive reasoning (based on WordNet synset semantic relations) that is able to iteratively lead to new concepts which progressively represent the cognitive creative user state Furthermore we design a selection mechanism to pick the most relevant abductive inferences by mixing a topological graph analysis together with a semantic similitude measure

A learning mechanism for the selection of hypotheses on abductive reasoning

Abstract: We propose a learning mechanism to learn how to select hypotheses from a set of abducibles (possible hypotheses) on abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is to infer an explanation of why observations could have occurred. In abduction this explanation is called a hypothesis which is selected from a set of the given possible hypotheses. This selection follows the plausible heuristics (ME-minimal explanation) criterion, LPE (least presumptive explanation) criterion, or basic criterion). Abduction is characterized by these semantic selection principles which is different from the MDL on induction. This learning mechanism is to learn preferentially propositions or rules that are selected by the heuristics. We try to integrate abductive learning and inductive learning by the number of examples for learning.

Sign formation: the logical aspect

Abstract: The article is described the principles of the formation of signs and their relationship with the arguments. The paper analyzed the main function of the sign and features of the types of reasoning. The study is illustrated an icon, an index and a symbol, as well as the argumentative component of the sign. Semiotic problems in the focus of the paper are 1) relations between a sign, an object and an interpreter; 2) classification of reasoning and their correspondence to the strength of arguments: deduction, induction, abduction; 3) features of the argument as a sign and the role of interpretation in the argumentative process; 4) functions of arguments as signs in the formation of a conclusion; 5) sign formation. A sign may be a sign, if only it turns into another sign. The purpose of the paper is to consider the process of forming a sign (sign system) in the context of the fundamental principles of Pierce's semiotic logic. Logical principles are habits of reasoning, and such habits are not signs. But reasoning is a sign, namely a sign that the premise is a sign of conclusion. Methods. The classic philosophical methods, viz. structural and comparative analysis, hermeneutics, were used to study the issue. Results : Sign formation must be considered in the context of the information field that is created during interpretation. Originality . Originality consists in examining the function of arguments as signs in the formation of a conclusion based on an analysis of Pierce's works (English edition). Conclusion. T he arguments are presented directly by the interpreters in accordance with the deductive, inductive and abductive principles and rules of conclusion. The logical component of the process of forming a sign includes us in the world of interpretation, bordering the language of the world, on the one hand, and on the other hand, with the person who created the world of language. An example would be abduction theory. The main position regarding abductive reasoning is the formation of the question field. The model proposed by Pierce includes sending and receiving a message, sending back to the sender and confirmation that understanding has been reached, as well as determining the conditions under which the meaning of the sign can be represented.