[mod.ai] Seminar - Analogical and Deductive Reasoning

admin%cogsci.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Cognitive Science Program) (11/18/86)

                         BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                       Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A


                        Tuesday, November 25, 11:00 - 12:30
                                  2515 Tolman Hall
                              Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                                  2515 Tolman Hall


                        ``Analogical and Deductive Reasoning"
                                   Stuart Russell
                                  Computer Science
                                     UC Berkeley

           The first problem I will discuss is that of analogical  reason-
           ing, the inference of further similarities from known similari-
           ties. Analogy has been widely advertised as a method for apply-
           ing  past  experience  in  new  situations, but the traditional
           approach based on similarity metrics has  proved  difficult  to
           operationalize.  The  reason  for  this  seems  to  be  that it
           neglects the importance of relevance between known and inferred
           similarities.  The  need  for a logical semantics for relevance
           motivates the definition of determinations, first-order expres-
           sions  capturing the idea of relevance between generalized pro-
           perties.  Determinations are shown to justify analogical infer-
           ences  and  single-instance  generalizations, and to express an
           apparently common  form  of  knowledge  hitherto  neglected  in
           knowledge-based  systems.   Essentially, the ability to acquire
           and use determinations increases the set of inferences a system
           can  make  from  given  data.  When specific determinations are
           unavailable, a simple statistical argument can relate  similar-
           ity  to the probability that an analogical solution is correct,
           in a manner closely connected to Shepard's stimulus generaliza-
           tion  results.   The second problem, suggested by and subsuming
           the first, is to identify the ways in which existing  knowledge
           can  be  used  to  help  a  system  to learn from experience. I
           describe a simple method for enumerating the types of knowledge
           (of which determinations are but one) that contribute to learn-
           ing, so that the  monolithic  notion  of  confirmation  can  be
           teased  apart. The results find strong echoes in Goodman's work
           on induction.  The application of  a  logical,  knowledge-based
           approach to the problems of analogy and induction indicates the
           need for a system to be able to detect as many forms  of  regu-
           larity  as  possible in order to maximize its inferential capa-
           bility. The possibility that important aspects of common sense
           are captured by complex, abstract regularities suggests further
           empirical research to identify this knowledge.