10 skills found
ParhamP / Natural Logic InterpreterAutomatically interpret and validate nested natural logic arguments based on rules of inference and propositional logic
primaryobjects / KnowledgebaseAn expert system using logic-based artificial intelligence and symbolic AI.
Aryia-Behroziuan / ReferencesPoole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, p. 1. Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 55. Definition of AI as the study of intelligent agents: Poole, Mackworth & Goebel (1998), which provides the version that is used in this article. These authors use the term "computational intelligence" as a synonym for artificial intelligence.[1] Russell & Norvig (2003) (who prefer the term "rational agent") and write "The whole-agent view is now widely accepted in the field".[2] Nilsson 1998 Legg & Hutter 2007 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 2. McCorduck 2004, p. 204 Maloof, Mark. "Artificial Intelligence: An Introduction, p. 37" (PDF). georgetown.edu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 August 2018. "How AI Is Getting Groundbreaking Changes In Talent Management And HR Tech". Hackernoon. Archived from the original on 11 September 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2020. Schank, Roger C. (1991). "Where's the AI". AI magazine. Vol. 12 no. 4. p. 38. Russell & Norvig 2009. "AlphaGo – Google DeepMind". Archived from the original on 10 March 2016. Allen, Gregory (April 2020). "Department of Defense Joint AI Center - Understanding AI Technology" (PDF). AI.mil - The official site of the Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 April 2020. Retrieved 25 April 2020. Optimism of early AI: * Herbert Simon quote: Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. * Marvin Minsky quote: Minsky 1967, p. 2 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. Boom of the 1980s: rise of expert systems, Fifth Generation Project, Alvey, MCC, SCI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 426–441 * Crevier 1993, pp. 161–162,197–203, 211, 240 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 * NRC 1999, pp. 210–211 * Newquist 1994, pp. 235–248 First AI Winter, Mansfield Amendment, Lighthill report * Crevier 1993, pp. 115–117 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 22 * NRC 1999, pp. 212–213 * Howe 1994 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 Second AI winter: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 430–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 209–210 * NRC 1999, pp. 214–216 * Newquist 1994, pp. 301–318 AI becomes hugely successful in the early 21st century * Clark 2015 Pamela McCorduck (2004, p. 424) writes of "the rough shattering of AI in subfields—vision, natural language, decision theory, genetic algorithms, robotics ... and these with own sub-subfield—that would hardly have anything to say to each other." This list of intelligent traits is based on the topics covered by the major AI textbooks, including: * Russell & Norvig 2003 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 * Nilsson 1998 Kolata 1982. Maker 2006. Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general: Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3, who make the analogy with aeronautical engineering. McCorduck 2004, pp. 100–101, who writes that there are "two major branches of artificial intelligence: one aimed at producing intelligent behavior regardless of how it was accomplished, and the other aimed at modeling intelligent processes found in nature, particularly human ones." Kolata 1982, a paper in Science, which describes McCarthy's indifference to biological models. Kolata quotes McCarthy as writing: "This is AI, so we don't care if it's psychologically real".[19] McCarthy recently reiterated his position at the AI@50 conference where he said "Artificial intelligence is not, by definition, simulation of human intelligence".[20]. Neats vs. scruffies: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 421–424, 486–489 * Crevier 1993, p. 168 * Nilsson 1983, pp. 10–11 Symbolic vs. sub-symbolic AI: * Nilsson (1998, p. 7), who uses the term "sub-symbolic". General intelligence (strong AI) is discussed in popular introductions to AI: * Kurzweil 1999 and Kurzweil 2005 See the Dartmouth proposal, under Philosophy, below. McCorduck 2004, p. 34. McCorduck 2004, p. xviii. McCorduck 2004, p. 3. McCorduck 2004, pp. 340–400. This is a central idea of Pamela McCorduck's Machines Who Think. She writes: "I like to think of artificial intelligence as the scientific apotheosis of a venerable cultural tradition."[26] "Artificial intelligence in one form or another is an idea that has pervaded Western intellectual history, a dream in urgent need of being realized."[27] "Our history is full of attempts—nutty, eerie, comical, earnest, legendary and real—to make artificial intelligences, to reproduce what is the essential us—bypassing the ordinary means. Back and forth between myth and reality, our imaginations supplying what our workshops couldn't, we have engaged for a long time in this odd form of self-reproduction."[28] She traces the desire back to its Hellenistic roots and calls it the urge to "forge the Gods."[29] "Stephen Hawking believes AI could be mankind's last accomplishment". BetaNews. 21 October 2016. Archived from the original on 28 August 2017. Lombardo P, Boehm I, Nairz K (2020). "RadioComics – Santa Claus and the future of radiology". Eur J Radiol. 122 (1): 108771. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108771. PMID 31835078. Ford, Martin; Colvin, Geoff (6 September 2015). "Will robots create more jobs than they destroy?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 June 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2018. AI applications widely used behind the scenes: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 28 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 265 * NRC 1999, pp. 216–222 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 AI in myth: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 4–5 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 939 AI in early science fiction. * McCorduck 2004, pp. 17–25 Formal reasoning: * Berlinski, David (2000). The Advent of the Algorithm. Harcourt Books. ISBN 978-0-15-601391-8. OCLC 46890682. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Turing, Alan (1948), "Machine Intelligence", in Copeland, B. Jack (ed.), The Essential Turing: The ideas that gave birth to the computer age, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 412, ISBN 978-0-19-825080-7 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 16. Dartmouth conference: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 111–136 * Crevier 1993, pp. 47–49, who writes "the conference is generally recognized as the official birthdate of the new science." * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who call the conference "the birth of artificial intelligence." * NRC 1999, pp. 200–201 McCarthy, John (1988). "Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of the History of Computing. 10 (3): 224–229., collected in McCarthy, John (1996). "10. Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Defending AI Research: A Collection of Essays and Reviews. CSLI., p. 73, "[O]ne of the reasons for inventing the term "artificial intelligence" was to escape association with "cybernetics". Its concentration on analog feedback seemed misguided, and I wished to avoid having either to accept Norbert (not Robert) Wiener as a guru or having to argue with him." Hegemony of the Dartmouth conference attendees: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who write "for the next 20 years the field would be dominated by these people and their students." * McCorduck 2004, pp. 129–130 Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18. Schaeffer J. (2009) Didn't Samuel Solve That Game?. In: One Jump Ahead. Springer, Boston, MA Samuel, A. L. (July 1959). "Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers". IBM Journal of Research and Development. 3 (3): 210–229. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.368.2254. doi:10.1147/rd.33.0210. "Golden years" of AI (successful symbolic reasoning programs 1956–1973): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 243–252 * Crevier 1993, pp. 52–107 * Moravec 1988, p. 9 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 18–21 The programs described are Arthur Samuel's checkers program for the IBM 701, Daniel Bobrow's STUDENT, Newell and Simon's Logic Theorist and Terry Winograd's SHRDLU. DARPA pours money into undirected pure research into AI during the 1960s: * McCorduck 2004, p. 131 * Crevier 1993, pp. 51, 64–65 * NRC 1999, pp. 204–205 AI in England: * Howe 1994 Lighthill 1973. Expert systems: * ACM 1998, I.2.1 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–24 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–331 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 17.4 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 327–335, 434–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–62, 197–203 * Newquist 1994, pp. 155–183 Mead, Carver A.; Ismail, Mohammed (8 May 1989). Analog VLSI Implementation of Neural Systems (PDF). The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. 80. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1639-8. ISBN 978-1-4613-1639-8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2020. Formal methods are now preferred ("Victory of the neats"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25–26 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 486–487 McCorduck 2004, pp. 480–483. Markoff 2011. "Ask the AI experts: What's driving today's progress in AI?". McKinsey & Company. Archived from the original on 13 April 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018. Administrator. "Kinect's AI breakthrough explained". i-programmer.info. Archived from the original on 1 February 2016. Rowinski, Dan (15 January 2013). "Virtual Personal Assistants & The Future Of Your Smartphone [Infographic]". ReadWrite. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. "Artificial intelligence: Google's AlphaGo beats Go master Lee Se-dol". BBC News. 12 March 2016. Archived from the original on 26 August 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016. Metz, Cade (27 May 2017). "After Win in China, AlphaGo's Designers Explore New AI". Wired. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. "World's Go Player Ratings". May 2017. Archived from the original on 1 April 2017. "柯洁迎19岁生日 雄踞人类世界排名第一已两年" (in Chinese). May 2017. Archived from the original on 11 August 2017. Clark, Jack (8 December 2015). "Why 2015 Was a Breakthrough Year in Artificial Intelligence". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016. After a half-decade of quiet breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, 2015 has been a landmark year. Computers are smarter and learning faster than ever. "Reshaping Business With Artificial Intelligence". MIT Sloan Management Review. Archived from the original on 19 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Lorica, Ben (18 December 2017). "The state of AI adoption". O'Reilly Media. Archived from the original on 2 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Allen, Gregory (6 February 2019). "Understanding China's AI Strategy". Center for a New American Security. Archived from the original on 17 March 2019. "Review | How two AI superpowers – the U.S. and China – battle for supremacy in the field". Washington Post. 2 November 2018. Archived from the original on 4 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018. at 10:11, Alistair Dabbs 22 Feb 2019. "Artificial Intelligence: You know it isn't real, yeah?". www.theregister.co.uk. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. "Stop Calling it Artificial Intelligence". Archived from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 1 December 2019. "AI isn't taking over the world – it doesn't exist yet". GBG Global website. Archived from the original on 11 August 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Kaplan, Andreas; Haenlein, Michael (1 January 2019). "Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence". Business Horizons. 62 (1): 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004. Domingos 2015, Chapter 5. Domingos 2015, Chapter 7. Lindenbaum, M., Markovitch, S., & Rusakov, D. (2004). Selective sampling for nearest neighbor classifiers. Machine learning, 54(2), 125–152. Domingos 2015, Chapter 1. Intractability and efficiency and the combinatorial explosion: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 9, 21–22 Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 3. Hart, P. E.; Nilsson, N. J.; Raphael, B. (1972). "Correction to "A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths"". SIGART Newsletter (37): 28–29. doi:10.1145/1056777.1056779. S2CID 6386648. Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Chapter 6. "Can neural network computers learn from experience, and if so, could they ever become what we would call 'smart'?". Scientific American. 2018. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Domingos 2015, Chapter 6, Chapter 7. Domingos 2015, p. 286. "Single pixel change fools AI programs". BBC News. 3 November 2017. Archived from the original on 22 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. "AI Has a Hallucination Problem That's Proving Tough to Fix". WIRED. 2018. Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. Matti, D.; Ekenel, H. K.; Thiran, J. P. (2017). Combining LiDAR space clustering and convolutional neural networks for pedestrian detection. 2017 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS). pp. 1–6. arXiv:1710.06160. doi:10.1109/AVSS.2017.8078512. ISBN 978-1-5386-2939-0. S2CID 2401976. Ferguson, Sarah; Luders, Brandon; Grande, Robert C.; How, Jonathan P. (2015). Real-Time Predictive Modeling and Robust Avoidance of Pedestrians with Uncertain, Changing Intentions. Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics. 107. Springer, Cham. pp. 161–177. arXiv:1405.5581. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16595-0_10. ISBN 978-3-319-16594-3. S2CID 8681101. "Cultivating Common Sense | DiscoverMagazine.com". Discover Magazine. 2017. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Davis, Ernest; Marcus, Gary (24 August 2015). "Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence". Communications of the ACM. 58 (9): 92–103. doi:10.1145/2701413. S2CID 13583137. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 6 April 2020. Winograd, Terry (January 1972). "Understanding natural language". Cognitive Psychology. 3 (1): 1–191. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90002-3. "Don't worry: Autonomous cars aren't coming tomorrow (or next year)". Autoweek. 2016. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Knight, Will (2017). "Boston may be famous for bad drivers, but it's the testing ground for a smarter self-driving car". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 27 March 2018. Prakken, Henry (31 August 2017). "On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law". Artificial Intelligence and Law. 25 (3): 341–363. doi:10.1007/s10506-017-9210-0. Lieto, Antonio (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possible developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Problem solving, puzzle solving, game playing and deduction: * Russell & Norvig 2003, chpt. 3–9, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, chpt. 2,3,7,9, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, chpt. 3,4,6,8, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 7–12 Uncertain reasoning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 452–644, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 345–395, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 333–381, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 19 Psychological evidence of sub-symbolic reasoning: * Wason & Shapiro (1966) showed that people do poorly on completely abstract problems, but if the problem is restated to allow the use of intuitive social intelligence, performance dramatically improves. (See Wason selection task) * Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky (1982) have shown that people are terrible at elementary problems that involve uncertain reasoning. (See list of cognitive biases for several examples). * Lakoff & Núñez (2000) have controversially argued that even our skills at mathematics depend on knowledge and skills that come from "the body", i.e. sensorimotor and perceptual skills. (See Where Mathematics Comes From) Knowledge representation: * ACM 1998, I.2.4, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–363, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 23–46, 69–81, 169–196, 235–277, 281–298, 319–345, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–243, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18 Knowledge engineering: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 260–266, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 199–233, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. ≈17.1–17.4 Representing categories and relations: Semantic networks, description logics, inheritance (including frames and scripts): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 349–354, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 174–177, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 248–258, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.3 Representing events and time:Situation calculus, event calculus, fluent calculus (including solving the frame problem): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 328–341, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–298, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.2 Causal calculus: * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 335–337 Representing knowledge about knowledge: Belief calculus, modal logics: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 341–344, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 275–277 Sikos, Leslie F. (June 2017). Description Logics in Multimedia Reasoning. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54066-5. ISBN 978-3-319-54066-5. S2CID 3180114. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. Ontology: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–328 Smoliar, Stephen W.; Zhang, HongJiang (1994). "Content based video indexing and retrieval". IEEE Multimedia. 1 (2): 62–72. doi:10.1109/93.311653. S2CID 32710913. Neumann, Bernd; Möller, Ralf (January 2008). "On scene interpretation with description logics". Image and Vision Computing. 26 (1): 82–101. doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2007.08.013. Kuperman, G. J.; Reichley, R. M.; Bailey, T. C. (1 July 2006). "Using Commercial Knowledge Bases for Clinical Decision Support: Opportunities, Hurdles, and Recommendations". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 13 (4): 369–371. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2055. PMC 1513681. PMID 16622160. MCGARRY, KEN (1 December 2005). "A survey of interestingness measures for knowledge discovery". The Knowledge Engineering Review. 20 (1): 39–61. doi:10.1017/S0269888905000408. S2CID 14987656. Bertini, M; Del Bimbo, A; Torniai, C (2006). "Automatic annotation and semantic retrieval of video sequences using multimedia ontologies". MM '06 Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. Santa Barbara: ACM. pp. 679–682. Qualification problem: * McCarthy & Hayes 1969 * Russell & Norvig 2003[page needed] While McCarthy was primarily concerned with issues in the logical representation of actions, Russell & Norvig 2003 apply the term to the more general issue of default reasoning in the vast network of assumptions underlying all our commonsense knowledge. Default reasoning and default logic, non-monotonic logics, circumscription, closed world assumption, abduction (Poole et al. places abduction under "default reasoning". Luger et al. places this under "uncertain reasoning"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 354–360, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 248–256, 323–335, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 335–363, * Nilsson 1998, ~18.3.3 Breadth of commonsense knowledge: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 21, * Crevier 1993, pp. 113–114, * Moravec 1988, p. 13, * Lenat & Guha 1989 (Introduction) Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986. Gladwell 2005. Expert knowledge as embodied intuition: * Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 (Hubert Dreyfus is a philosopher and critic of AI who was among the first to argue that most useful human knowledge was encoded sub-symbolically. See Dreyfus' critique of AI) * Gladwell 2005 (Gladwell's Blink is a popular introduction to sub-symbolic reasoning and knowledge.) * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 (Hawkins argues that sub-symbolic knowledge should be the primary focus of AI research.) Planning: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.8, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–459, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–316, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Information value theory: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 600–604 Classical planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–430, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–315, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Planning and acting in non-deterministic domains: conditional planning, execution monitoring, replanning and continuous planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 430–449 Multi-agent planning and emergent behavior: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 449–455 Turing 1950. Solomonoff 1956. Alan Turing discussed the centrality of learning as early as 1950, in his classic paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence".[120] In 1956, at the original Dartmouth AI summer conference, Ray Solomonoff wrote a report on unsupervised probabilistic machine learning: "An Inductive Inference Machine".[121] This is a form of Tom Mitchell's widely quoted definition of machine learning: "A computer program is set to learn from an experience E with respect to some task T and some performance measure P if its performance on T as measured by P improves with experience E." Learning: * ACM 1998, I.2.6, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 649–788, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 397–438, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 385–542, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 3.3, 10.3, 17.5, 20 Jordan, M. I.; Mitchell, T. M. (16 July 2015). "Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects". Science. 349 (6245): 255–260. Bibcode:2015Sci...349..255J. doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415. PMID 26185243. S2CID 677218. Reinforcement learning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 763–788 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 442–449 Natural language processing: * ACM 1998, I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 790–831 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 91–104 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 591–632 "Versatile question answering systems: seeing in synthesis" Archived 1 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Mittal et al., IJIIDS, 5(2), 119–142, 2011 Applications of natural language processing, including information retrieval (i.e. text mining) and machine translation: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 840–857, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 623–630 Cambria, Erik; White, Bebo (May 2014). "Jumping NLP Curves: A Review of Natural Language Processing Research [Review Article]". IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine. 9 (2): 48–57. doi:10.1109/MCI.2014.2307227. S2CID 206451986. Vincent, James (7 November 2019). "OpenAI has published the text-generating AI it said was too dangerous to share". The Verge. Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2020. Machine perception: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 537–581, 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, ~chpt. 6 Speech recognition: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 568–578 Object recognition: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 885–892 Computer vision: * ACM 1998, I.2.10 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 6 Robotics: * ACM 1998, I.2.9, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 901–942, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 443–460 Moving and configuration space: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 916–932 Tecuci 2012. Robotic mapping (localization, etc): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 908–915 Cadena, Cesar; Carlone, Luca; Carrillo, Henry; Latif, Yasir; Scaramuzza, Davide; Neira, Jose; Reid, Ian; Leonard, John J. (December 2016). "Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping: Toward the Robust-Perception Age". IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 32 (6): 1309–1332. arXiv:1606.05830. Bibcode:2016arXiv160605830C. doi:10.1109/TRO.2016.2624754. S2CID 2596787. Moravec, Hans (1988). Mind Children. Harvard University Press. p. 15. Chan, Szu Ping (15 November 2015). "This is what will happen when robots take over the world". Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 23 April 2018. "IKEA furniture and the limits of AI". The Economist. 2018. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Kismet. Thompson, Derek (2018). "What Jobs Will the Robots Take?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Scassellati, Brian (2002). "Theory of mind for a humanoid robot". Autonomous Robots. 12 (1): 13–24. doi:10.1023/A:1013298507114. S2CID 1979315. Cao, Yongcan; Yu, Wenwu; Ren, Wei; Chen, Guanrong (February 2013). "An Overview of Recent Progress in the Study of Distributed Multi-Agent Coordination". IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 9 (1): 427–438. arXiv:1207.3231. doi:10.1109/TII.2012.2219061. S2CID 9588126. Thro 1993. Edelson 1991. Tao & Tan 2005. Poria, Soujanya; Cambria, Erik; Bajpai, Rajiv; Hussain, Amir (September 2017). "A review of affective computing: From unimodal analysis to multimodal fusion". Information Fusion. 37: 98–125. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.003. hdl:1893/25490. Emotion and affective computing: * Minsky 2006 Waddell, Kaveh (2018). "Chatbots Have Entered the Uncanny Valley". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Pennachin, C.; Goertzel, B. (2007). Contemporary Approaches to Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence. Cognitive Technologies. Cognitive Technologies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4_1. ISBN 978-3-540-23733-4. Roberts, Jacob (2016). "Thinking Machines: The Search for Artificial Intelligence". Distillations. Vol. 2 no. 2. pp. 14–23. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 20 March 2018. "The superhero of artificial intelligence: can this genius keep it in check?". the Guardian. 16 February 2016. Archived from the original on 23 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Mnih, Volodymyr; Kavukcuoglu, Koray; Silver, David; Rusu, Andrei A.; Veness, Joel; Bellemare, Marc G.; Graves, Alex; Riedmiller, Martin; Fidjeland, Andreas K.; Ostrovski, Georg; Petersen, Stig; Beattie, Charles; Sadik, Amir; Antonoglou, Ioannis; King, Helen; Kumaran, Dharshan; Wierstra, Daan; Legg, Shane; Hassabis, Demis (26 February 2015). "Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning". Nature. 518 (7540): 529–533. Bibcode:2015Natur.518..529M. doi:10.1038/nature14236. PMID 25719670. S2CID 205242740. Sample, Ian (14 March 2017). "Google's DeepMind makes AI program that can learn like a human". the Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. "From not working to neural networking". The Economist. 2016. Archived from the original on 31 December 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Domingos 2015. Artificial brain arguments: AI requires a simulation of the operation of the human brain * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 957 * Crevier 1993, pp. 271 and 279 A few of the people who make some form of the argument: * Moravec 1988 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 262 * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 The most extreme form of this argument (the brain replacement scenario) was put forward by Clark Glymour in the mid-1970s and was touched on by Zenon Pylyshyn and John Searle in 1980. Goertzel, Ben; Lian, Ruiting; Arel, Itamar; de Garis, Hugo; Chen, Shuo (December 2010). "A world survey of artificial brain projects, Part II: Biologically inspired cognitive architectures". Neurocomputing. 74 (1–3): 30–49. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2010.08.012. Nilsson 1983, p. 10. Nils Nilsson writes: "Simply put, there is wide disagreement in the field about what AI is all about."[163] AI's immediate precursors: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 51–107 * Crevier 1993, pp. 27–32 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 15, 940 * Moravec 1988, p. 3 Haugeland 1985, pp. 112–117 The most dramatic case of sub-symbolic AI being pushed into the background was the devastating critique of perceptrons by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert in 1969. See History of AI, AI winter, or Frank Rosenblatt. Cognitive simulation, Newell and Simon, AI at CMU (then called Carnegie Tech): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 139–179, 245–250, 322–323 (EPAM) * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–149 Soar (history): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 450–451 * Crevier 1993, pp. 258–263 McCarthy and AI research at SAIL and SRI International: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 251–259 * Crevier 1993 AI research at Edinburgh and in France, birth of Prolog: * Crevier 1993, pp. 193–196 * Howe 1994 AI at MIT under Marvin Minsky in the 1960s : * McCorduck 2004, pp. 259–305 * Crevier 1993, pp. 83–102, 163–176 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 19 Cyc: * McCorduck 2004, p. 489, who calls it "a determinedly scruffy enterprise" * Crevier 1993, pp. 239–243 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 363−365 * Lenat & Guha 1989 Knowledge revolution: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 266–276, 298–300, 314, 421 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–23 Frederick, Hayes-Roth; William, Murray; Leonard, Adelman. "Expert systems". AccessScience. doi:10.1036/1097-8542.248550. Embodied approaches to AI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 454–462 * Brooks 1990 * Moravec 1988 Weng et al. 2001. Lungarella et al. 2003. Asada et al. 2009. Oudeyer 2010. Revival of connectionism: * Crevier 1993, pp. 214–215 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25 Computational intelligence * IEEE Computational Intelligence Society Archived 9 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Hutson, Matthew (16 February 2018). "Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis". Science. pp. 725–726. Bibcode:2018Sci...359..725H. doi:10.1126/science.359.6377.725. Archived from the original on 29 April 2018. Retrieved 28 April 2018. Norvig 2012. Langley 2011. Katz 2012. The intelligent agent paradigm: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 27, 32–58, 968–972 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 7–21 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 235–240 * Hutter 2005, pp. 125–126 The definition used in this article, in terms of goals, actions, perception and environment, is due to Russell & Norvig (2003). Other definitions also include knowledge and learning as additional criteria. Agent architectures, hybrid intelligent systems: * Russell & Norvig (2003, pp. 27, 932, 970–972) * Nilsson (1998, chpt. 25) Hierarchical control system: * Albus 2002 Lieto, Antonio; Lebiere, Christian; Oltramari, Alessandro (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possibile developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Lieto, Antonio; Bhatt, Mehul; Oltramari, Alessandro; Vernon, David (May 2018). "The role of cognitive architectures in general artificial intelligence". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.08.003. hdl:2318/1665249. S2CID 36189683. Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 1. White Paper: On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust (PDF). Brussels: European Commission. 2020. p. 1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 February 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2020. CNN 2006. Using AI to predict flight delays Archived 20 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Ishti.org. N. Aletras; D. Tsarapatsanis; D. Preotiuc-Pietro; V. Lampos (2016). "Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective". PeerJ Computer Science. 2: e93. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.93. "The Economist Explains: Why firms are piling into artificial intelligence". The Economist. 31 March 2016. Archived from the original on 8 May 2016. Retrieved 19 May 2016. Lohr, Steve (28 February 2016). "The Promise of Artificial Intelligence Unfolds in Small Steps". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 February 2016. Retrieved 29 February 2016. Frangoul, Anmar (14 June 2019). "A Californian business is using A.I. to change the way we think about energy storage". CNBC. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2019. Wakefield, Jane (15 June 2016). "Social media 'outstrips TV' as news source for young people". BBC News. Archived from the original on 24 June 2016. Smith, Mark (22 July 2016). "So you think you chose to read this article?". BBC News. Archived from the original on 25 July 2016. Brown, Eileen. "Half of Americans do not believe deepfake news could target them online". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 3 December 2019. The Turing test: Turing's original publication: * Turing 1950 Historical influence and philosophical implications: * Haugeland 1985, pp. 6–9 * Crevier 1993, p. 24 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 70–71 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3 and 948 Dartmouth proposal: * McCarthy et al. 1955 (the original proposal) * Crevier 1993, p. 49 (historical significance) The physical symbol systems hypothesis: * Newell & Simon 1976, p. 116 * McCorduck 2004, p. 153 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18 Dreyfus 1992, p. 156. Dreyfus criticized the necessary condition of the physical symbol system hypothesis, which he called the "psychological assumption": "The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules."[206] Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence: * Dreyfus 1972, Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 * Crevier 1993, pp. 120–132 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 211–239 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 950–952, Gödel 1951: in this lecture, Kurt Gödel uses the incompleteness theorem to arrive at the following disjunction: (a) the human mind is not a consistent finite machine, or (b) there exist Diophantine equations for which it cannot decide whether solutions exist. Gödel finds (b) implausible, and thus seems to have believed the human mind was not equivalent to a finite machine, i.e., its power exceeded that of any finite machine. He recognized that this was only a conjecture, since one could never disprove (b). Yet he considered the disjunctive conclusion to be a "certain fact". The Mathematical Objection: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 949 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 448–449 Making the Mathematical Objection: * Lucas 1961 * Penrose 1989 Refuting Mathematical Objection: * Turing 1950 under "(2) The Mathematical Objection" * Hofstadter 1979 Background: * Gödel 1931, Church 1936, Kleene 1935, Turing 1937 Graham Oppy (20 January 2015). "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016. These Gödelian anti-mechanist arguments are, however, problematic, and there is wide consensus that they fail. Stuart J. Russell; Peter Norvig (2010). "26.1.2: Philosophical Foundations/Weak AI: Can Machines Act Intelligently?/The mathematical objection". Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-604259-4. even if we grant that computers have limitations on what they can prove, there is no evidence that humans are immune from those limitations. Mark Colyvan. An introduction to the philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2012. From 2.2.2, 'Philosophical significance of Gödel's incompleteness results': "The accepted wisdom (with which I concur) is that the Lucas-Penrose arguments fail." Iphofen, Ron; Kritikos, Mihalis (3 January 2019). "Regulating artificial intelligence and robotics: ethics by design in a digital society". Contemporary Social Science: 1–15. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1563803. ISSN 2158-2041. "Ethical AI Learns Human Rights Framework". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 11 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019. Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144. In the early 1970s, Kenneth Colby presented a version of Weizenbaum's ELIZA known as DOCTOR which he promoted as a serious therapeutic tool.[216] Joseph Weizenbaum's critique of AI: * Weizenbaum 1976 * Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 356–373 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 961 Weizenbaum (the AI researcher who developed the first chatterbot program, ELIZA) argued in 1976 that the misuse of artificial intelligence has the potential to devalue human life. Wendell Wallach (2010). Moral Machines, Oxford University Press. Wallach, pp 37–54. Wallach, pp 55–73. Wallach, Introduction chapter. Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson (2011), Machine Ethics, Cambridge University Press. "Machine Ethics". aaai.org. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Rubin, Charles (Spring 2003). "Artificial Intelligence and Human Nature". The New Atlantis. 1: 88–100. Archived from the original on 11 June 2012. Brooks, Rodney (10 November 2014). "artificial intelligence is a tool, not a threat". Archived from the original on 12 November 2014. "Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates Warn About Artificial Intelligence". Observer. 19 August 2015. Archived from the original on 30 October 2015. Retrieved 30 October 2015. Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219. Archived from the original on 8 March 2005. Retrieved 11 October 2018. See also this link Archived 8 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine Horst, Steven, (2005) "The Computational Theory of Mind" Archived 11 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Searle 1980, p. 1. This version is from Searle (1999), and is also quoted in Dennett 1991, p. 435. Searle's original formulation was "The appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states." [230] Strong AI is defined similarly by Russell & Norvig (2003, p. 947): "The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently
graphik-team / GraalGraal is a Java toolkit for querying knowledge bases within the framework of existential rules, aka Datalog+/-. See Graal's homepage:
paladin-t / Joan DemoAn NLP solution for Chinese. Demonstrates with a full functional chatbot.
Aryia-Behroziuan / Robot LearningIn developmental robotics, robot learning algorithms generate their own sequences of learning experiences, also known as a curriculum, to cumulatively acquire new skills through self-guided exploration and social interaction with humans. These robots use guidance mechanisms such as active learning, maturation, motor synergies and imitation. Association rules Main article: Association rule learning See also: Inductive logic programming Association rule learning is a rule-based machine learning method for discovering relationships between variables in large databases. It is intended to identify strong rules discovered in databases using some measure of "interestingness".[60] Rule-based machine learning is a general term for any machine learning method that identifies, learns, or evolves "rules" to store, manipulate or apply knowledge. The defining characteristic of a rule-based machine learning algorithm is the identification and utilization of a set of relational rules that collectively represent the knowledge captured by the system. This is in contrast to other machine learning algorithms that commonly identify a singular model that can be universally applied to any instance in order to make a prediction.[61] Rule-based machine learning approaches include learning classifier systems, association rule learning, and artificial immune systems. Based on the concept of strong rules, Rakesh Agrawal, Tomasz Imieliński and Arun Swami introduced association rules for discovering regularities between products in large-scale transaction data recorded by point-of-sale (POS) systems in supermarkets.[62] For example, the rule {\displaystyle \{\mathrm {onions,potatoes} \}\Rightarrow \{\mathrm {burger} \}}\{{\mathrm {onions,potatoes}}\}\Rightarrow \{{\mathrm {burger}}\} found in the sales data of a supermarket would indicate that if a customer buys onions and potatoes together, they are likely to also buy hamburger meat. Such information can be used as the basis for decisions about marketing activities such as promotional pricing or product placements. In addition to market basket analysis, association rules are employed today in application areas including Web usage mining, intrusion detection, continuous production, and bioinformatics. In contrast with sequence mining, association rule learning typically does not consider the order of items either within a transaction or across transactions. Learning classifier systems (LCS) are a family of rule-based machine learning algorithms that combine a discovery component, typically a genetic algorithm, with a learning component, performing either supervised learning, reinforcement learning, or unsupervised learning. They seek to identify a set of context-dependent rules that collectively store and apply knowledge in a piecewise manner in order to make predictions.[63] Inductive logic programming (ILP) is an approach to rule-learning using logic programming as a uniform representation for input examples, background knowledge, and hypotheses. Given an encoding of the known background knowledge and a set of examples represented as a logical database of facts, an ILP system will derive a hypothesized logic program that entails all positive and no negative examples. Inductive programming is a related field that considers any kind of programming language for representing hypotheses (and not only logic programming), such as functional programs. Inductive logic programming is particularly useful in bioinformatics and natural language processing. Gordon Plotkin and Ehud Shapiro laid the initial theoretical foundation for inductive machine learning in a logical setting.[64][65][66] Shapiro built their first implementation (Model Inference System) in 1981: a Prolog program that inductively inferred logic programs from positive and negative examples.[67] The term inductive here refers to philosophical induction, suggesting a theory to explain observed facts, rather than mathematical induction, proving a property for all members of a well-ordered set. Models Performing machine learning involves creating a model, which is trained on some training data and then can process additional data to make predictions. Various types of models have been used and researched for machine learning systems. Artificial neural networks Main article: Artificial neural network See also: Deep learning An artificial neural network is an interconnected group of nodes, akin to the vast network of neurons in a brain. Here, each circular node represents an artificial neuron and an arrow represents a connection from the output of one artificial neuron to the input of another. Artificial neural networks (ANNs), or connectionist systems, are computing systems vaguely inspired by the biological neural networks that constitute animal brains. Such systems "learn" to perform tasks by considering examples, generally without being programmed with any task-specific rules. An ANN is a model based on a collection of connected units or nodes called "artificial neurons", which loosely model the neurons in a biological brain. Each connection, like the synapses in a biological brain, can transmit information, a "signal", from one artificial neuron to another. An artificial neuron that receives a signal can process it and then signal additional artificial neurons connected to it. In common ANN implementations, the signal at a connection between artificial neurons is a real number, and the output of each artificial neuron is computed by some non-linear function of the sum of its inputs. The connections between artificial neurons are called "edges". Artificial neurons and edges typically have a weight that adjusts as learning proceeds. The weight increases or decreases the strength of the signal at a connection. Artificial neurons may have a threshold such that the signal is only sent if the aggregate signal crosses that threshold. Typically, artificial neurons are aggregated into layers. Different layers may perform different kinds of transformations on their inputs. Signals travel from the first layer (the input layer) to the last layer (the output layer), possibly after traversing the layers multiple times. The original goal of the ANN approach was to solve problems in the same way that a human brain would. However, over time, attention moved to performing specific tasks, leading to deviations from biology. Artificial neural networks have been used on a variety of tasks, including computer vision, speech recognition, machine translation, social network filtering, playing board and video games and medical diagnosis. Deep learning consists of multiple hidden layers in an artificial neural network. This approach tries to model the way the human brain processes light and sound into vision and hearing. Some successful applications of deep learning are computer vision and speech recognition.[68]
acrion / ZelphA sophisticated semantic network system capable of encoding inference rules within the network itself. Built for efficient memory usage and powerful logical reasoning, zelph can process the entire Wikidata knowledge graph (1.7TB) to detect contradictions and make logical deductions.
thedtripp / MinesweeperAn ancient logic game which has been stumping puzzle lovers since 1992. We have coded a logical agent to play (and win) this game. As the agent uncovers squares, it builds a knowledge base and makes inferences about which squares are safe and which squares contain mines. As the agent examines the safe squares, more areas are opened. Sometimes, the agent is unable to determine whether a square is safe or not. In the case, advanced tactics for a probabilistic treatment of forced guesses are employed.
Aryia-Behroziuan / OverviewKnowledge-representation is a field of artificial intelligence that focuses on designing computer representations that capture information about the world that can be used to solve complex problems. The justification for knowledge representation is that conventional procedural code is not the best formalism to use to solve complex problems. Knowledge representation makes complex software easier to define and maintain than procedural code and can be used in expert systems. For example, talking to experts in terms of business rules rather than code lessens the semantic gap between users and developers and makes development of complex systems more practical. Knowledge representation goes hand in hand with automated reasoning because one of the main purposes of explicitly representing knowledge is to be able to reason about that knowledge, to make inferences, assert new knowledge, etc. Virtually all knowledge representation languages have a reasoning or inference engine as part of the system.[10] A key trade-off in the design of a knowledge representation formalism is that between expressivity and practicality. The ultimate knowledge representation formalism in terms of expressive power and compactness is First Order Logic (FOL). There is no more powerful formalism than that used by mathematicians to define general propositions about the world. However, FOL has two drawbacks as a knowledge representation formalism: ease of use and practicality of implementation. First order logic can be intimidating even for many software developers. Languages that do not have the complete formal power of FOL can still provide close to the same expressive power with a user interface that is more practical for the average developer to understand. The issue of practicality of implementation is that FOL in some ways is too expressive. With FOL it is possible to create statements (e.g. quantification over infinite sets) that would cause a system to never terminate if it attempted to verify them. Thus, a subset of FOL can be both easier to use and more practical to implement. This was a driving motivation behind rule-based expert systems. IF-THEN rules provide a subset of FOL but a very useful one that is also very intuitive. The history of most of the early AI knowledge representation formalisms; from databases to semantic nets to theorem provers and production systems can be viewed as various design decisions on whether to emphasize expressive power or computability and efficiency.[11] In a key 1993 paper on the topic, Randall Davis of MIT outlined five distinct roles to analyze a knowledge representation framework:[12] A knowledge representation (KR) is most fundamentally a surrogate, a substitute for the thing itself, used to enable an entity to determine consequences by thinking rather than acting, i.e., by reasoning about the world rather than taking action in it. It is a set of ontological commitments, i.e., an answer to the question: In what terms should I think about the world? It is a fragmentary theory of intelligent reasoning, expressed in terms of three components: (i) the representation's fundamental conception of intelligent reasoning; (ii) the set of inferences the representation sanctions; and (iii) the set of inferences it recommends. It is a medium for pragmatically efficient computation, i.e., the computational environment in which thinking is accomplished. One contribution to this pragmatic efficiency is supplied by the guidance a representation provides for organizing information so as to facilitate making the recommended inferences. It is a medium of human expression, i.e., a language in which we say things about the world. Knowledge representation and reasoning are a key enabling technology for the Semantic Web. Languages based on the Frame model with automatic classification provide a layer of semantics on top of the existing Internet. Rather than searching via text strings as is typical today, it will be possible to define logical queries and find pages that map to those queries.[13] The automated reasoning component in these systems is an engine known as the classifier. Classifiers focus on the subsumption relations in a knowledge base rather than rules. A classifier can infer new classes and dynamically change the ontology as new information becomes available. This capability is ideal for the ever-changing and evolving information space of the Internet.[14] The Semantic Web integrates concepts from knowledge representation and reasoning with markup languages based on XML. The Resource Description Framework (RDF) provides the basic capabilities to define knowledge-based objects on the Internet with basic features such as Is-A relations and object properties. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) adds additional semantics and integrates with automatic classification reasoners.[15]
divyasaxenaa / Artificial Intelligence WumpusWorldThe task in this programming assignment is to implement, a knowledge base and an inference engine for the wumpus world. First of all, you have to create a knowledge base (stored as a text file) storing the rules of the wumpus world, i.e., what we know about pits, monsters, breeze, and stench. Second, you have to create an inference engine, that given a knowledge base and a statement determines if, based on the knowledge base, the statement is definitely true, definitely false, or of unknown truth value. Command-line Arguments The program should be invoked from the commandline as follows: check_true_false wumpus_rules.txt [additional_knowledge_file] [statement_file] For example: check_true_false wumpus_rules.txt kb1.txt statement1.txt Argument wumpus_rules.txt specifies the location of a text file containing the wumpus rules, i.e., the rules that are true in any possible wumpus world, as specified above (once again, note that the specifications above are not identical to the ones in the book). Argument [additional_knowledge_file] specifies an input file that contains additional information, presumably collected by the agent as it moves from square to square. For example, see kb3.txt. Argument [statement_file] specifies an input file that contains a single logical statement. The program should check if, given the information in wumpus_rules.txt and [additional_knowledge_file], the statement in [statement_file] is definitely true, definitely false, or none of the above. Output Your program should create a text file called "result.txt". Depending on what your inference algorithm determined about the statement being true or false, the output file should contain one of the following four outputs: definitely true. This should be the output if the knowledge base entails the statement, and the knowledge base does not entail the negation of the statement. definitely false. This should be the output if the knowledge base entails the negation of the statement, and the knowledge base does not entail the statement. possibly true, possibly false. This should be the output if the knowledge base entails neither the statement nor the negation of the statement. both true and false. This should be the output if the knowledge base entails both the statement and the the negation of the statement. This happens when the knowledge base is always false (i.e., when the knowledge base is false for every single row of the truth table). Note that by "knowledge base" we are referring to the conjunction of all statements contained in wumpus_rules.txt AND in the additional knowledge file. Also note that the sample code provided below stores the words "result unknown" to the result.txt file. Also, the "both true and false" output should be given when the knowledge base (i.e., the info stored in wumpus_rules.txt AND in the additional knowledge file) entails both the statement from statement_file AND the negation of that statement. Syntax The wumpus rules file and the additional knowledge file contain multiple lines. Each line contains a logical statement. The knowledge base constructed by the program should be a conjunction of all the statements contained in the two files. The sample code (as described later) already does that. The statement file contains a single line, with a single logical statement. Statements are given in prefix notation. Some examples of prefix notation are: (or M_1_1 B_1_2) (and M_1_2 S_1_1 (not (or M_1_3 M_1_4))) (if M_1_1 (and S_1_2 S_1_3)) (iff M_1_2 (and S_1_1 S_1_3 S_2_2)) (xor B_2_2 P_1_2) P_1_1 B_3_4 (not P_1_1) Statements can be nested, as shown in the above examples. Note that: Any open parenthesis that is not the first character of a text line must be preceded by white space. Any open parenthesis must be immediately followed by a connective (without any white space in between). Any close parenthesis that is not the last character of a text line must be followed by white space. If the logical expression contains just a symbol (and no connectives), the symbol should NOT be enclosed in parentheses. For example, (P_1_1) is not legal, whereas (not P_1_1) is legal. See also the example statements given above. Each logical expression should be contained in a single line. The wumpus rules file and the additional knowledge file contain a set of logical expressions. The statement file should contain a single logical expression. If it contains more than one logical expression, only the first one is read. Lines starting with # are treated as comment lines, and ignored. You can have empty lines, but they must be totally empty. If a line has a single space on it (and nothing more) the program will complain and not read the file successfully. There are six connectives: and, or, xor, not, if, iff. No other connectives are allowed to be used in the input files. Here is some additional information: A statement can consist of either a single symbol, or a connective connecting multiple (sub)statements. Notice that this is a recursive definition. In other words, statements are symbols or more complicated statements that we can make by connecting simpler statements with one of the six connectives. Connectives "and", "or", and "xor" can connect any number of statements, including 0 statements. It is legal for a statement consisting of an "and", "or", or "xor" connective to have no substatements, e.g., (and). An "and" statement with zero substatements is true. An "or" or "xor" statement with zero substatements is false. An "xor" statement is true if exactly 1 substatement is true (no more, no fewer). Connectives "if" and "iff" require exactly two substatements. Connective "not" requires exactly one substatement. The only symbols that are allowed to be used are: M_i_j (standing for "there is a monster at square (i, j)). S_i_j (standing for "there is a stench at square (i, j)). P_i_j (standing for "there is a pit at square (i, j)). B_i_j (standing for "there is a breeze at square (i, j)). NO OTHER SYMBOLS ARE ALLOWED. Also, note that i and j can take values 1, 2, 3, and 4. In other words, there will be 16 unique symbols of the form M_i_j, 16 unique symbols of the form S_i_j, 16 unique symbols of the form P_i_j, and 16 unique symbols of the form B_i_j, for a total of 64 unique symbols. The Wumpus Rules Here is what we know to be true in any wumpus world, for the purposes of this assignment (NOTE THAT THESE RULES ARE NOT IDENTICAL TO THE ONES IN THE TEXTBOOK): If there is a monster at square (i,j), there is stench at all adjacent squares. If there is stench at square (i,j), there is a monster at one of the adjacent squares. If there is a pit at square (i,j), there is breeze at all adjacent squares. If there is breeze at square (i,j), there is a pit at one or more of the adjacent squares. There is one and only one monster (no more, no fewer). Squares (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (2,2) have no monsters and no pits. The number of pits can be between 1 and 11. We don't care about gold, glitter, and arrows, there will be no information about them in the knowledge base, and no reference to them in the statement. Sample code The following code implements, in Java and C++, a system that reads text files containing information for the knowledge base and the statement whose truth we want to check. Feel free to use that code and build on top of it. Also feel free to ignore that code and start from scratch. Java: files CheckTrueFalse.java and LogicalExpression.java C++: files check_true_false.cpp and check_true_false.h Python (ver 2.4): check_true_false.py and logical_expression.py. (Zipped version of files here). You can test this code, by compiling on omega, and running on input files a.txt, b.txt, and c.txt. For example, for the Java code you can run it as: javac *.java java CheckTrueFalse a.txt b.txt c.txt and for C++, you can do: g++ -o check_true_false check_true_false.cpp ./check_true_false a.txt b.txt c.txt Efficiency Brute-force enumeration of the 264 possible assignments to the 64 Boolean variables will be too inefficient to produce answers in a reasonable amount of time. Because of that, we will only be testing your solutions with cases where the additional knowledge file contains specific information about at least 48 of the symbols. For example, suppose that the agent has already been at square (2,3). Then, the agent knows for that square that: There is no monster (otherwise the agent would have died). There is no pit (otherwise the agent would have died). Furthermore, the agent knows whether or not there is stench and/or breeze at that square. Suppose that, in our example, there is breeze and no stench. Then, the additional knowledge file would contain these lines for square 2,3: (not M_2_3) (not P_2_3) B_2_3 (not S_2_3) You can assume that, in all our test cases, there will be at least 48 lines like these four lines shown above, specifying for at least 48 symbols whether they are true or false. Assuming that you implement the TT-Entails algorithm, your program should identify those symbols and their values right at the beginning. You can identify those symbols using these guidelines: Note that the sample code stores the knowledge base as a LogicalExpression object, whose connective at the root is an AND. Let's call this LogicalExpression object knowledge_base. Suppose that you have a line such as "B_2_3" in the additional knowledge file. Such a line generates a child of knowledge_base that is a leaf, and has its "symbol" variable set to "B_2_3". You can write code that explicitly looks for such children of knowledge_base. Suppose that you have a line such as "(not M_2_3") in the additional knowledge file. Such a line generates a child of knowledge_base whose connective is NOT, and whose only child is a leaf with its "symbol" variable set to "M_2_3". You can write code that explicitly looks for such children of knowledge_base. This way, your program will be able to initialize the model that TT-Entails passes to TT-Check-All with boolean assignments for at least 48 symbols, as opposed to passing an empty model. The list of symbols passed from TT-Entails to TT-Check-All should obviously NOT include the symbols that have been assigned values in the initial model. This way, at most 16 symbols will have unspecified values, and TT-Check-All will need to check at most 216 rows in the truth table, which is quite doable in a reasonable amount of time (a few seconds).
