Weighted abduction for plan ascription

  • Douglas E. Appelt
  • Martha E. Pollack
Article

Abstract

We describe an approach to abductive reasoning calledweighted abduction, which uses inference weights to compare competing explanations for observed behavior. We present an algorithm for computing a weighted-abductive explanation, and sketch a model-theoretic semantics for weighted abduction. We argue that this approach is well suited to problems of reasoning about mental state. In particular, we show how the model of plan ascription developed by Konolige and Pollack can be recast in the framework of weighted abduction, and we discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of this encoding.

Key words

Plan recognition Plan evaluation Mental-state ascription Abduction Evaluation metrics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, J. F.: 1983, ‘Recognizing Intentions from Natural Language Utterances’. In: M. Brady and R. C. Berwick (eds.):Computational Models of Discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Calistri-Yeh, R. J.: 1991, ‘Utilizing User Models to Handle Ambiguity in Robust Plan Recognition.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(4), 289–322.Google Scholar
  3. Charniak E. and Goldman, R.: 1988, ‘A Logic for Semantic Interpretation’.26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Buffalo, NY, pp. 87–94.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J.: 1990, ‘Intention is Choice with Commitment’.Artificial Intelligence 42(3), 213–262.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. E.: 1990,Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Doyle, J.: 1979, ‘A Truth Maintenance System’.Artificial Intelligence 12(3), 231–272.Google Scholar
  7. Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M., Martin, P., and Edwards, D.: 1988, ‘Interpretation as Abduction’.26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Buffalo, NY, pp. 95–103.Google Scholar
  8. Kautz, H. A.: 1990, ‘A Circumscriptive Theory of Plan Recognition’. In: Cohen, Morgan, and Pollack (eds.):Intentions in Communication.Google Scholar
  9. Konolige, K.: 1988, ‘Defeasible Argumentation in Reasoning About Events’.Proceedings of the International Symposium on Machine Intelligence and Systems, Torino, Italy.Google Scholar
  10. Konolige, K. and Pollack, M. E.: 1989, ‘Ascribing Plans to Agents: Preliminary Report’.Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, MI, pp. 924–930.Google Scholar
  11. Levesque, H. J.: 1989, ‘A Knowledge-level Account of Abduction’.Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, MI, pp. 1061–1067.Google Scholar
  12. Ng, H. T. and Mooney, R. J.: 1989, ‘Occam's Razor Isn't Sharp Enough: The Importance of Coherence in Abductive Explanation’.Second AAAI Workshop on Plan Recognition, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  13. Pierce, C.: 1955,Abduction and Induction. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  14. Pollack, M. E.: 1986, ‘Inferring Domain Plans in Question-answering’. TR 403, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. (Also appears as a University of Pennsylvania PhD thesis.)Google Scholar
  15. Pollack, M. E.: 1990, ‘Plans as Complex Mental Attitudes’. In: Cohen, Morgan, and Pollack (eds.):Intentions in Communication.Google Scholar
  16. Poole, D.: 1989, ‘Explanation and Prediction: An Architecture for Default and Abductive Reasoning.Computational Intelligence 5(2), 97–110.Google Scholar
  17. Pople, H.: 1982, ‘Heuristic Methods for Imposing Structure on Ill-structured Problems: The Structuring of Medical Diagnosis’. In: P. Szolovits (ed.):Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  18. Quilici, A., Dyer, M., and Flowers, M.: 1988, ‘Recognizing and Responding to Plan-oriented Misconceptions’.Computational Linguistics 14(3), 38–51.Google Scholar
  19. Raskutti, B. and Zukerman, I.: 1991, ‘Generation and Selection of Likely Interpretations during Plan Recognition’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(4), 323–353.Google Scholar
  20. Reggia, J.: 1983, ‘Diagnostic Expert Systems Based on a Set-covering Model’.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 19(5), 437–460.Google Scholar
  21. Reiter, R.: 1987, ‘A Theory of Diagnosis from First Principles’.Artificial Intelligence 32(1), 57–96.Google Scholar
  22. Selman, B. and Levesque, H.: 1990, ‘Abductive and Default Reasoning: A Computational Core’.Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 343–348.Google Scholar
  23. Sidner, C. L.: 1985, ‘Plan Parsing for Intended Response Recognition in Discourse’.Computational Intelligence 1(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  24. Selman, B. and Kautz, H.: 1988, ‘The Complexity of Model-preference Default Theories’. In: M. Reinfrank, J. deKleer, M. L. Ginsberg, and E. Sandewall (eds.):Second International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Stickel, M. E.: 1988a, ‘A Prolog-like Inference System for Computing Minimum-cost Abductive Explanations in Natural-language Interpretation’.International Computer Science Conference, Hong Kong, pp. 343–350.Google Scholar
  26. Stickel, M. E.: 1988b, ‘A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: Implementation by an Extended Prolog Compiler’.Journal of Automated Reasoning 4, 353–380.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas E. Appelt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martha E. Pollack
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence CenterMenlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Language and InformationSRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations