Advertisement

Reasoning by Assumption: Formalisation and Analysis of Human Reasoning Traces

  • Tibor Bosse
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Jan Treur
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3561)

Abstract

This paper shows how empirical human reasoning traces can be formalised and automatically analysed against dynamic properties they fulfil. To this end, for the reasoning pattern called ‘reasoning by assumption’ a variety of dynamic properties have been specified, some of which are considered characteristic for the reasoning pattern, whereas some other properties can be used to discriminate between different approaches to the reasoning. These properties have been automatically checked for the traces acquired in experiments undertaken.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Simulation and analysis of controlled multi-representational reasoning processes. In: Proc. of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Modelling, ICCM 2003. Universitats-Verlag Bamberg, pp. 27–32 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., Schut, M.C., Treur, J.: Modelling Shared Extended Mind and Collective Representational Content. In: Proc. of the 24th International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence. LNCS (LNAI), Springer, Heidelberg (2004) (to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed Requirements Acquisition. Science in Computer Programming 20, 3–50 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubois, E., Du Bois, P., Zeippen, J.M.: A Formal Requirements Engineering Method for Real-Time, Concurrent, and Distributed Systems. In: Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Conference, RTS 1995 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herlea, D.E., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J., Wijngaards, N.J.E.: Specification of Behavioural Requirements within Compositional Multi-Agent System Design. In: Garijo, F.J., Boman, M. (eds.) MAAMAW 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1647, pp. 8–27. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Compositional verification of multi-agent systems: A formal analysis of pro-activeness and reactiveness. In: de Roever, W.-P., Langmaack, H., Pnueli, A. (eds.) COMPOS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1536, pp. 350–380. Springer, Heidelberg (1998); Extended version in: International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 11, 51–92 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Analysis of the Dynamics of Reasoning Using Multiple Representations. In: Gray, W.D., Schunn, C.D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci. 2002, pp. 512–517. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Modelling the Dynamics of Reasoning Processes: Reasoning by Assumption. Cognitive Systems Research Journal (2003) (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4, 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson, T.: A Brief History of the Master MindTM Board Game, http://www.tnelson.demon.co.uk/mastermind/history.html
  11. 11.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tibor Bosse
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 2
  • Jan Treur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Division Cognitive EngineeringNijmegen Institute for Cognition and Information

Personalised recommendations