Advertisement

The Logical Way to Be Artificially Intelligent

  • Robert Kowalski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3900)

Abstract

Abductive logic programming (ALP) can be used to model reactive, proactive and pre-active thinking in intelligent agents. Reactive thinking assimilates observations of changes in the environment, whereas proactive thinking reduces goals to sub-goals and ultimately to candidate actions. Pre-active thinking generates logical consequences of candidate actions, to help in deciding between the alternatives. These different ways of thinking are compatible with any way of deciding between alternatives, including the use of both decision theory and heuristics.

The different forms of thinking can be performed as they are needed, or they can be performed in advance, transforming high-level goals and beliefs into lower-level condition-action rule form, which can be implemented in neural networks. Moreover, the higher-level and lower-level representations can operate in tandem, as they do in dual-process models of thinking. In dual process models, intuitive processes form judgements rapidly, sub-consciously and in parallel, while deliberative processes form and monitor judgements slowly, consciously and serially.

ALP used in this way can not only provide a framework for constructing artificial agents, but can also be used as a cognitive model of human agents. As a cognitive model, it combines both a descriptive model of how humans actually think with a normative model of humans can think more effectively.

Keywords

Logic Program Achievement Goal Integrity Constraint Inductive Logic Programming Candidate Action 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baron, J.: Thinking and Deciding, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Checkland, P.: Soft Systems Methodology: a thirty year retrospective. John Wiley, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kahneman, D., Shane, F.: Representativeness revisited: Attributive substitution in intuitive judgement. In: Heuristics of Intuitive Judgement: Extensions and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kakas, T., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: The Role of Logic Programming in Abduction. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Programming 5, pp. 235–324. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kowalski, R.: Logic for Problem Solving. North-Holland, Elsevier (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kowalski, R.: How to be artificially intelligent (2002-2006), http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rak/
  7. 7.
    Kowalski, R., Sadri, F.: From Logic Programming towards Multi-agent Systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 391–419 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Poole, D.L.: The independent choice logic for modeling multiple agents under uncertainty. Artificial Intelligence 94, 7–56 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poole, D.L., Mackworth, A.K., Goebel, R.: Computational intelligence: a logical approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, E.R., DeCoster, J.: Dual-Process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4, 108–131 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thagard, P.: Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vickers, G.: The Art of Judgement. Chapman and Hall, London (1965)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frawley, W.: Control and Cross-Domain Mental Computation: Evidence from Language Breakdown. Computational Intelligence 18(1), 1–28 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    d’Avila Garcez, A.S., Broda, K., Gabbay, D.M.: Symbolic knowledge extraction from trained neural networks: A sound approach. Artificial Intelligence 125, 155–207 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holldobler, S., Kalinke, Y.: Toward a new massively parallel computational model for logic programming. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Combining Symbolic and Connectionist Processing, ECAI 1994, pp. 68–77 (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stenning, K., van Lambalgen, M.: Semantic interpretation as computation in nonmonotonic logic. Cognitive Science (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nicolas, J.M., Gallaire, H.: Database: Theory vs. interpretation. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Databases. Plenum, New York (1978)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Kowalski
    • 1
  1. 1.Imperial College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations