AISB91 pp 36-47 | Cite as

RR — An Intelligent Resource-Bounded Reasoner

  • Nuno J. Mamede
  • João P. Martins
Conference paper


Most of the programs developed by AI researchers, suffer from two problems: (1) they do not take into account the fact of reasoning resources are limited; (2) and they remain silent (no answer is produced) whenever a definite answer cannot be produced.

The system described in this paper combines the use of resources with the capability of producing conditional answers. A conditional answer explicitly reveals the impediments that are responsible for the lack of a definite answer.

We present RR, an intelligent resource-bounded reasoner, whose resource manipulation is flexible enough to accommodate several resource representations and resource spending strategies. Since no commitments about the way resources are spent are made a priori, the process of consuming resources can be used to model non-omniscient, non-exhaustive reasoners.

The concepts explored by RR are being incorporated into the SNePS, the Semantic Network Processing System, and so improving (1) the way human reasoning can be modeled, and (2) its interface with the outside world.


Knowledge Base Inference Rule Resource System Potential State Definite Answer 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Anderson and Belnap 75]
    A. Anderson and N. Belnap, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity 1 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1975).Google Scholar
  2. [Belnap 77]
    N. Belnap, A useful four-valued logic, in: G. Epstein and J. Dunn, eds., Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1977) 8–37.Google Scholar
  3. [Bobrow and Winograd 77]
    D. Bobrow and T. Winograd, An overview of KRL, a knowledge representation language, Cognitive Science 1(1) (1977) 3–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Donlon 82]
    G. Donlon, Using resource limited inference in SNePS, SNeRG Technical Note 10, Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. [Driankov 88]
    D. Driankov, Towards a many-valued logic of quantified belief, Ph.D. Thesis, Thesis 192, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [Fagin and Halpern 87]
    R. Fagin and J. Halpern, Belief, awareness, and limited rea.-soning, Artificial Intelligence 34(1) (1987) 39–76.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [Garcia and Moussavi 90]
    O. Garcia and M. Moussavi, A six-valued logic for representing incomplete knowledge, in: Proceedings 20th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, Charlotte, NC (IEEE, 1990) 110–114.Google Scholar
  8. [Hintikka 75]
    J. Hintikka, Impossible possible worlds vindicated, Journal of Philosophical Logic 4 (1975) 475–484.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [Horvitz 88]
    E. Horvitz, Reasoning under a varying and uncertain resource constraints, in: Proceedings AAAI-88, Saint Paul, MN (1988) 111–116.Google Scholar
  10. [Mamede and Martins 90a]
    N. Mamede and J. Martins, Expanding SNePS capabilities with LORE, in: D. Kumar, ed., Proceedings First Annual SNePS Workshop Buffalo, NY (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990) 27–39.Google Scholar
  11. [Mamede and Martins 90b]
    N. Mamede and J. Martins, Bringing resources into logic, in: Proceedings 20th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, Charlotte, NC (IEEE, 1990) 220–227.Google Scholar
  12. [Mamede and Martins 90c]
    N. Mamede and J. Martins, Resource-bounded abduction, GIA Technical Report 90/4, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. [Martins 83]
    J. Martins, Reasoning in multiple belief spaces, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical Report 203, Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. [Martins and Shapiro 88]
    J. Martins and S. Shapiro, A model for belief revision, Artificial Intelligence 35(1) (1988) 25–79.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [Minicozzi and Reiter 72]
    E. Minicozzi and R. Reiter, A note on linear resolution strategies in consequence-finding, Artificial Intelligence 3(1–4) (1972) 175–180.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [Mutchler 86]
    D. Mutchler, Optimal allocation of very limited search resources, in: Proceedings AAAI-86, Philadelphia, PA (1986) 467–471.Google Scholar
  17. [Reiter and de Kleer 87]
    Reiter R. and J. de Kleer, Foundations of assumption-based truth maintenance systems: Preliminary Report, in: Proceedings AAAI-87, Seattle, WA (1987) 183–188.Google Scholar
  18. [Slagle, Chang and Lee 69]
    J. Slagle, C. Chang and R. Lee, Completeness theorem-s for semantic resolution in consequence-finding in: Proceedings IJCAI-69, Washington, D.C. (1969) 281–285.Google Scholar
  19. [Swartout 83]
    W. Swartout, XPLAIN A system for creating and explaining expert consulting programs, Artificial Intelligence 21(3) (1983) 285–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [Winograd 80]
    T. Winograd, Extended inference modes in reasoning by computer systems, Artificial Intelligence 13(1) (1980) 5–26.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuno J. Mamede
    • 1
  • João P. Martins
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto Superior TécnicoTechnical University of LisbonLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations