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.

The Ontology of Tasks and Methods

Abstract: Much of the work on ontologies in AI has focused on describing some aspect of reality: objects, relations, states of affairs, events, and processes in the world. A goal is to make knowledge sharable, by encoding domain knowledge using a standard vocabulary based on the ontology. A parallel attempt at identifying the ontology of problem-solving knowledge would make it possible .to share problem-solving methods. For example, when one is dealing with a type of problem known as abductive inference, the following are some of the terms that recur in the representation of problem-solving methods: hypotheses, explanatory coverage, evidence, degree of confidence, plausibility, composite hypothesis, etc. Method ontology, in good part, is task- and method-specific. "Generic Tasks," "Heuristic Classification," "Task-specific Architectures," and "Task Structures" are representative bodies of work in the knowledgesystems area that have focused on problem-solving methods. However, connections have not been made to work that is explicitly concerned with ontologies. Making such connections is the goal of this paper.

Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument : A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law

Abstract: This book, the expanded and completely revised text of the author's renowned 1993 dissertation, studies the logical aspects of legal reasoning, in order to provide philosophical foundations for legal applications of Artificial Intelligence. It respects that legal reasoning often takes place in a disputational setting, and observes that the law leaves ample room for disagreement, which means that lawyers reason under the possibility of exceptions and with contradictory legal sources, and cannot do without non-deductive reasoning forms, such as analogical reasoning. The study shows that, contrary to what is often said, these features do not escape a logical analysis if recent developments in logic and Artificial Intelligence on so-called non-monotonic reasoning and defeasible argumentation are used, and if logic is regarded as a tool in, rather than as, a model of legal argument. This book is relevant for scholars in legal philosophy, artificial intelligence, logic and argumentation theory, and can also serve as a textbook for graduate courses in AI & Law, non-monotonic reasoning and legal argumentation.

Abduction as the type of inference that characterizes the development of a grounded theory

Abstract: In this article, abduction is introduced in relation to theorizing in grounded theory. Theoretical insights are inevitable cornerstones of the development of a grounded theory and abduction is worked out as a type of inference that characterizes this development. How abduction could be used in grounded theorizing is shown in a grounded theory research on ‘organizing doubt’, i.e. the way Dutch army units are formed with self-organizing capabilities that can be deployed during crisis operations. The authors show that two concepts from organizational theory that are central in this grounded theory’s analytical framework - i.e. ‘dynamic complexity’ and ‘self-organization’ - are developed and embedded in a substantive theory on ‘organizing doubt’ by abductive reasoning.

Explanation and Abductive Inference

Abstract: Everyday cognition reveals a sophisticated capacity to seek, generate, and evaluate explanations for the social and physical worlds around us. Why are we so driven to explain, and what accounts for our systematic explanatory preferences? This chapter reviews evidence from cognitive psychology and cognitive development concerning the structure and function of explanations, with a focus on the role of explanations in learning and inference. The findings highlight the value of understanding explanation and abductive inference both as phenomena in their own right and for the insights they provide concerning foundational aspects of human cognition, such as representation, learning, and inference.

Abductive Reasoning: Logic, Visual Thinking, and Coherence

Abstract: This paper discusses abductive reasoning—that is, reasoning in which explanatory hypotheses are formed and evaluated. First, it criticizes two recent formal logical models of abduction. An adequate formalization would have to take into account the following aspects of abduction: explanation is not deduction; hypotheses are layered; abduction is sometimes creative; hypotheses may be revolutionary; completeness is elusive; simplicity is complex; and abductive reasoning may be visual and non-sentential. Second, in order to illustrate visual aspects of hypothesis formation, the paper describes recent work on visual inference in archaeology. Third, in connection with the evaluation of explanatory hypotheses, the paper describes recent results on the computation of coherence.