Human inference beyond syllogisms: an approach using external graphical representations
- 73 Downloads
Research in psychology about reasoning has often been restricted to relatively inexpressive statements involving quantifiers (e.g. syllogisms). This is limited to situations that typically do not arise in practical settings, like ontology engineering. In order to provide an analysis of inference, we focus on reasoning tasks presented in external graphic representations where statements correspond to those involving multiple quantifiers and unary and binary relations. Our experiment measured participants’ performance when reasoning with two notations. The first notation used topological constraints to convey information via node-link diagrams (i.e. graphs). The second used topological and spatial constraints to convey information (Euler diagrams with additional graph-like syntax). We found that topo-spatial representations were more effective for inferences than topological representations alone. Reasoning with statements involving multiple quantifiers was harder than reasoning with single quantifiers in topological representations, but not in topo-spatial representations. These findings are compared to those in sentential reasoning tasks.
KeywordsInference Diagrammatic reasoning External representation Quantifiers Binary predicates
Parts of this study were presented in the 40th CogSci Conference (July, 2018) in Madison. The authors would like to thank John Howse, Andrew Blake and Ryo Takemura for cooperating on the experiments.
This research was funded by a Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant (RPG-2016-082) for the project entitled Accessible Reasoning with Diagrams.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
All procedures performed in the experiment involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the experiment.
- Barwise J, Shimojima A (1995) Surrogate reasoning. Cogn Stud Bull Jpn Cogn Sci Soc 4:7–27Google Scholar
- Bowman SR, Angeli G, Potts C, Manning CD (2015) A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In: Proceedings of 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. The Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 632–642Google Scholar
- Chandrasekaran B (2011) When is a bunch of marks on paper a diagram? Diagrams as homomorphic representations. Semiotica 186:69–87Google Scholar
- Flouris G, Huang Z, Pan JZ, Plexousakis D, Wache H (2006) Inconsistencies, negations and changes in ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 21st national conference on artificial intelligence. The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, pp 1295–1300Google Scholar
- Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov BN (eds) (2001) The analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Glasgow J, Narayanan NH, Chandrasekaran B (eds) (1995) Diagrammatic reasoning: cognitive and computational perspectives. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Itzik N, Reinhartz-Berger I (2014) SOVA—a tool for semantic and ontological variability analysis. In: Proceedings of CAiSE 2014 forum at the 26th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, CEUR, vol 1164, pp 177–184Google Scholar
- Khemlani S, Lotstein M, Johnson-Laird P (2014) A mental model theory of set membership. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, pp 2489–2494Google Scholar
- Nguyen TAT, Power R, Piwek P, Williams S (2012) Measuring the understandability of deduction rules for OWL. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on debugging ontologies and ontology mappings, LECP 79, Linköping University Electronic Press, pp 1–12Google Scholar
- Nguyen TAT, Power R, Piwek P, Williams S (2013) Predicting the understandability of OWL inferences. In: Proceedings of the extended semantic web conference 2013, LNCS 7882. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 109–123Google Scholar
- Ragni M, Singmann H, Steinlein EM (2014) Theory comparison for generalized quantifiers. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, pp 1222–1227Google Scholar
- Sato Y, Mineshima K (2016) Human reasoning with proportional quantifiers and its support by diagrams. In: Proceedings of diagrams 2016, LNCS 9781. Springer, Switzerland, pp 123–138Google Scholar
- Sato Y, Stapleton G, Jamnik M, Shams Z, Blake A (2017) How Network-based and set-based visualizations aid consistency checking in ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on visual information communication and interaction. ACM, New York, NY, pp 137–141Google Scholar
- Stapleton G, Compton M, Howse J (2017) Visualizing OWL 2 using diagrams. In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp 245–253Google Scholar
- W3C OWL Working Group (2012) OWL 2 web ontology language. Retrieved Dec 2017 from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/