An analysis of knowledge representation schemes for high level vision

  • Gregory M. Provan
Recognition - Matching
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 427)


This paper analyses the criteria necessary for a knowledge representation (KR) language for implementing high level vision (HLV) recognition systems. We show the importance of introducing a specific KR language for specification, and possibly for implementation of HLV systems. In particular, we examine the adequacy, tractability and suitability of implementing a HLV system using logic, the KR language most commonly used in areas of Artificial Intelligence isomorphic to HLV. In addition, we use this analysis of classical logic to identify the criteria necessary for any HLV KR language. Logic is seen to be at least as good a language for specification of HLV systems as any other KR language. However, using evidence obtained from an object recognition system implemented using propositional logic, evidence which is supported by theoretical analyses, we argue that classical logic is an inadequate KR language for implementing HLV systems. It cannot identify preferred interpretations, and is computationally intractable, even for simple propositional languages.


Classical Logic Default Theory Knowledge Representation Language Object Recognition System Preference Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. [1]
    C. Cherniak. Minimal Rationality. MIT Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. de Kleer. An Assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence, 28:127–162, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Doyle and M.P. Wellman. Impediments to Universal Preference-Based Default Theories. In Proc. of the Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 94–102, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Mackworth. Adequacy Criteria for Visual Knowledge Representation. In Z. Pylyshyn, editor, Computational Processes in Human Vision: An Interdisciplicary Perspective, pages 464–476. Ablex Publishers, Norwood, NJ, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Pearl. Fusion, Propagation, and Structuring in Belief Networks. Artificial Intelligence, 29:241–288, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. Provan. The Visual Constraint Recognition System (VICTORS): Exploring the Role of Reasoning in High Level Vision. In Proc. IEEE Workshop on Computer Vision, pages 170–175, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. Provan. A Logic-based Analysis of Dempster Shafer Theory. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, to appear, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    G. Provan. An Analysis of Model Minimisation Methods of Computing AI Theories. Technical Report to appear, University of British Columbia, Department of Computer Science, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    G. Provan. Model-based Object Recognition using an Extended ATMS. Technical Report to appear, University of British Columbia, Department of Computer Science, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Reiter and A.K. Mackworth. A Logical Framework for Depiction and Image Interpretation. Artificial Intelligence, 41:125–155, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    B. Selman and H. Kautz. The Complexity of Model-Preference Default Theories. In Proc. Conf. Canadian Soc. Computational Studies of Intelligence, pages 102–109, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory M. Provan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations