A Multi-Strategy Approach to Structural Analogy Making
Fabio Leuzzi2017, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-017-0447-6visibility
…
description
31 pages
link
1 file
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
Analogy is the cognitive process of matching the characterizing features of two different items. This may enable reuse of knowledge across domains , which can help to solve problems. Indeed, abstracting the 'role' of the features away from their specific embodiment in the single items is fundamental to recognize the possibility of an analogical mapping between them. The analogical reasoning process consists of five steps: retrieval, mapping, evaluation , abstraction and re-representation. This paper proposes two forms of an operator that includes all these elements, providing more power and flexibility than existing systems. In particular, the Roles Mapper leverages the presence of identical descriptors in the two domains, while the Roles Argumentation-based Mapper removes also this limitation. For generality and compliance with other reasoning operators in a multi-strategy inference setting, they exploit a simple formalism based on First-Order Logic and do not require any background knowledge or meta-knowledge. Applied to the most critical classical examples in the literature, they proved to be able to find insightful analogies.
Related papers
A framework for arguing from analogy: preliminary results
Human reasoning applies argumentation patterns to draw conclusions about a particular subject. These patterns represent the structure of the arguments in the form of argumentation schemes which are useful in AI to emulate human reasoning. A type of argument schema is that what allow to analyze the similarities and differences between two arguments, to find a solution to a new problem from an already known one. Researchers in the heavily studied field of analogies in discourse have recognized that there is not a full and complete definition to indicate when two arguments are considered analogous. Our proposal presents an initial attempt to formalize argumentation schemes based on analogies, considering a relationship of analogy between arguments. This will contribute to the area increasing such schemes usefulness in Artificial Intelligence (AI), since it can be implemented later in Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP).
An Approach to the Semantics of Analogical Relations1
2007
Whereas approaches for deductive and inductive reasoning are well-examined for decades, analogical reasoning seems to be a hard problem for machine intelligence. Although several models for computing analogies have been proposed, there is no uncontroversial theory of the semantics of analogies. In this paper, we will investigate semantic issues of analogical relations, in particular, we will specify a model theory of analogical transfers. The presented approach is based on Heuristic-Driven Theory Projection (HDTP) a framework that computes an analogical relation between logical theories describing a source and a target domain. HDTP establishes the analogy by an abstraction process in which formulas from both domains are generalized creating a theory that syntactically subsumes the original theories. We will show that this syntactic process can be given a sensible interpretation on the semantic level. In particular, given models of the source and the target domains, we will examine t...
Analogy in a general-purpose reasoning system
Cognitive Systems Research, 2009
This paper introduces the various forms of analogy in NARS, a general-purpose reasoning system. NARS is an AI system designed to be adaptive and to work with insufficient knowledge and resources. In the system, multiple types of inference, including analogy, deduction, induction, abduction, comparison, and revision, are unified both in syntax and in semantics. The system can also carry out
Varieties of Analogical Reasoning
Motivation -The purpose of this article is to reinvigorate debate concerning the nature of analogy and broaden the scope of current conceptions of analogy. Research approach -An analysis of the history of the concept of analogy, case studies on the use of analogy in problemsolving, cognitive research on analogy comprehension, and a naturalistic inquiry into the various functions of analogy. Findings and Implications -Psychological theories and computational models have generally relied on: (a) A single set of ontological concepts (a property called "similarity" and a structuralist categorization of types of semantic relations) (b) A single form category (i.e., the classic four-term analogy), and (c) A single set of morphological distinctions (e.g., verbal versus pictorial analogies). The taxonomy presented here distinguishes functional kinds of analogy, each of which presents an opportunity for research on aspects of reasoning that have been largely unrecognized. Originality/Value -The various functional kinds of analogy will each require their own treatment in macrocognitive theories and computational models. Take away message -The naturalistic investigation of the functions of analogy suggests that analogy is a macrocognitive phenomenon derivative of number of supporting processes, including the apperception of resemblances and distinctions, metaphor, and the balancing of semantic flexibility and inference constraint.
A Logical Approach to Reasoning
by Analogy.
We analyze the logical form of the domain knowledge that grounds analogical inferences and generalizations from a single instance. The form of the assumptions which justify analogies is given schematically as the "determination rule", so called because it expresses the relation of one set of variables determining the values of another set. The determination relation is a logical generalization of the different types of dependency relations defined in database theory. Specifically, we define determination as a relation between schemata of first order logic that have two kinds of free variables: (1) object variables and what we call "polar" variables, which hold the place of truth values. Determination rules facilitate sound rule inference and valid conclusions projected by analogy from single instances, without implying what the conclusion should be prior to an inspection of the instance. They also provide a way to specify what information is sufficiently relevant to decide a question, prior to knowledge of the answer to the question. 1
Integrating analogical reasoning in a natural language understander
Proceedings of the third international conference on Industrial and engineering applications of artificial intelligence and expert systems - IEA/AIE '90, 1990
The research described in this paper addresses the problem of integrating analogical reasoning and argumentation into a natural language understanding system. We present an approach to completing an implicit argument-by-analogy as found in a natural language editorial text. The transformation of concepts from one domain to another, which is inherent in this task, is a complex process requiring basic reasoning skills and domain knowledge, as well as an understanding of the structure and use of both analogies and arguments. The integration of knowledge about natural language understanding, argumentation, and analogical reasoning is demonstrated in a proof of concept system called ARIEL. ARIEL is able to detect the presence of an analogy in an editorial text, identify the source and target components, and develop a conceptual representation of the completed analogy in memory. The design of our system is modular in nature, permitting extensions to the existing knowledge base and making the argumentation and analogical reasoning components portable to other understanding systems.
The logical and pragmatic structure of arguments from analogy
The reasoning process of analogy is characterized by a strict interdependence between a process of abstraction of a common feature and the transfer of an attribute of the Analogue to the Primary Subject. The first reasoning step is regarded as an abstraction of a generic characteristic that is relevant for the attribution of the predicate. The abstracted feature can be considered from a logic-semantic perspective as a functional genus, in the sense that it is contextually essential for the attribution of the predicate, i.e. that is pragmatically fundamental (i.e. relevant) for the predica-tion, or rather the achievement of the communicative intention. While the transfer of the predicate from the Analogue to the analogical genus and from the genus to the Primary Subject is guaranteed by the maxims (or rules of inference) governing the genus-species relation, the connection between the genus and the predicate can be complex, characterized by various types of reasoning patterns. The relevance relation can hide implicit arguments, such as an implicit argument from classification , an evaluation based on values, consequences or rules, a causal relation, or an argument from practical reasoning.
Source Selection for Analogical Reasoning: An Empirical Approach
National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1996
The effectiveness of an analogical reasoner depends upon its ability to select a relevant analogical source. In many problem domains, however, too little is known about target problems to support effective source selection. This paper describes the design and evaluation of SCAVENGER, an analogical reasoner that applies two techniques to this problem: (1) An assumption-based approach to matching that allows
Analogical Reasoning
2018
Analogical reasoning is the ability to perceive and use relational commonality between two situations. Most commonly, analogy involves mapping relational structures from a familiar (base situation to an unfamiliar situation (target). For example, solving the analogy “chicken is to chick like tiger is to___?” requires perceiving the relation parent–offspring in the base domain (chicken:chick) and mapping the same relation to the target (tiger:__?) to get to the answer cub. Relational similarity is the crux of analogical reasoning; what is crucial here is the sameness of the relation, not of other similarities—chickens and tigers do not look alike
Reasoning and learning by analogy: Introduction
American Psychologist, 1997
1. Analogy is a powerful cognitive mechanism that people use to make inferences and learn new abstractions. The history of work on analogy in modern cognitive science is sketched, focusing on contributions from cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, and philosophy of science. This review sets the stage for the 3 articles that follow in this Science Watch section.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Related topics
Related papers
Remarks on the Meaning of Analogical Relations
Proceedings of the 3d Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI-10), 2010
Analogical reasoning plays an important role in the context of higher cognitive abilities of humans. Analogies can be used not only to explain reasoning abilities of humans, but also to explain learning from sparse data, creative problem solving, abstractions of concrete situations, and recognition of formerly unseen situations, just to mention some examples. Research in AI and cognitive science has been proposing several different models of analogy making. Nevertheless, no approach for a model theoretic semantics of analogy making is currently available. This paper gives an analysis of the meaning (the semantics) of analogical relations that are computed by the analogy engine HDTP (Heuristic-Driven Theory Projection).
Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction
Cognitive Science, 1989
A theory of analogical mapping between source and target analogs based upon interacting structural, semantic, and pragmatic constraints is proposed here. The structural constraint of isomorphism encourages mappings that maximize the consistency of relational corresondences between the elements of the two analogs. The constraint of semantic similarity supports mapping hypotheses to the degree that mapped predicates have similar meanings. The constraint of pragmatic centrality favors mappings involving elements the analogist believes to be important in order to achieve the purpose for which the analogy is being used. The theory is implemented in a computer program called ACME (Analogical Constraint Mapping Engine), which represents constraints by means of a network of supporting and competing hypotheses regarding what elements to map. A cooperative algorithm for parallel constraint satisfaction identities mapping hypotheses that collectively represent the overall mapping that best fits the interacting constraints. ACME has been applied to a wide range of examples that include problem analogies, analogical arguments, explanatory analogies, story analogies, formal analogies, and metaphors. ACME is sensitive to semantic and pragmatic information if it is available, and yet able to compute mappings between formally isomorphic analogs without any similar or identical elements. The theory is able to account for empirical findings regarding the impact of consistency and similarity on human processing of analogies.
By Parallel Reasoning: The Construction and Evaluation of Analogical Arguments
The Philosophical Review, 2012
To the extent that the worth of scientific or philosophical efforts can be assessed by the number of productive research avenues they open up, this is definitely an important book. It deserves careful consideration by scientists, mathematicians, psychologists, and philosophers. Since it does not fit neatly into any usual category but rather stands athwart many research areas, its reception may depend on precisely who attends to its bold claims. This book aims to answer two questions: "What criteria should we use to evaluate analogical arguments used in science?" and "How can we provide a philosophical justification for those criteria?" (ix). Paul Bartha recognizes that analogies are widely used in all areas of human action-but claims: "We have no substantive normative theory of analogical arguments" (3). He persuasively argues that none of the theoretical approaches to analogical argumentation that previously have been developed is generally applicable. But he holds that the uses of analogies in science and mathematics are "key or 'leading' special cases that provide an excellent basis for a general normative theory" of analogical reasoning (3). This book proposes a systematic theoretical treatment, and a set of evaluation criteria, that (Bartha claims) apply to all varieties of analogical reasoning-both in science and elsewhere. This assertion is not modest, but careful arguments support it well. The claim seems quite plausible. Analogical arguments involve "source" (S) and "target" (T) domains that are similar to each other in certain respects. Positive analogies occur when property P and relation R pertain to domain S , and corresponding property P * and relation R * pertain to T. If the target domain T has feature A * but the source domain S lacks that feature (so that , A applies to S), this constitutes a negative analogy. The question at issue is: Under what conditions (and with what degree of confidence) would it be correct to infer that if S has a feature Q , then T has a corresponding feature Q * ? In favorable cases deductive reasoning may lead to conclusions that are considered correct with a high degree of certainty. In contrast, analogical reasoning at its best leads to results that are 'plausible'-that is "they have some degree of support" (15). Plausibility can be interpreted probabilistically, so that plausible statements are understood to have a rather high probability of being true, and additional relevant evidence may increase that probability. In
Large-Scale Analogical Reasoning
Cognitive simulation of analogical processing can be used to answer comparison questions such as: What are the similarities and/or differences between A and B, for concepts A and B in a knowledge base (KB). Previous attempts to use a general-purpose analogical reasoner to answer such questions revealed three major problems: (a) the system presented too much information in the answer, and the salient similarity or difference was not highlighted; (b) analogical inference found some incorrect differences; and (c) some expected similarities were not found. The cause of these problems was primarily a lack of a well-curated KB and, and secondarily, al-gorithmic deficiencies. In this paper, relying on a well-curated biology KB, we present a specific implementation of comparison questions inspired by a general model of analogical reasoning. We present numerous examples of answers produced by the system and empirical data on answer quality to illustrate that we have addressed many of the problems of the previous system.
REASONING BY ANALOGY
Analogy plays an important role in science as well as in non-scientific domains such as taxonomy or learning. We make explicit the difference and complementarity between the concept of analogical statement, which merely states that two objects have a relevant similarity, and the concept of analogical inference, which relies on the former in order to draw a conclusion from some premises. For the first, we show that it is not possible to give an absolute definition of what it means for two objects to be analogous; a relative definition of analogy is introduced, only relevant from some point of view. For the second, we argue that it is necessary to introduce a background over-hypothesis relating two sets of properties; the belief strength of the conclusion is then directly related to the belief strength of the over-hypothesis. Moreover, we assert the syntactical identity between analogical inference and one case induction despite important pragmatic differences.
Towards Analogy-Based Decision - A Proposal
Flexible Query Answering Systems, 2017
This short paper outlines an analogy-based decision method. It takes advantage of analogical proportions between situations, i.e., a is to b as c is to d, for proposing plausibly good decisions that may be appropriate for a new situation at hand. It goes beyond case-based decision where the idea of graded similarity may hide some small but crucial differences between situations. The method relies on triples of known cases rather than on individual cases for making a prediction on the appropriateness of a potential decision, or for proposing a way of adapting a decision according to situations. The approach may be of interest in a variety of problems ranging from flexible querying systems to cooperative artificial agents.
Producing and Recognizing Analogical Relations
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2009
Analogical reasoning is an important component of intelligent behavior, and a key test of any approach to human language and cognition. Only a limited amount of empirical work has been conducted from a behavior analytic point of view, most of that within Relational Frame Theory (RFT), which views analogy as a matter of deriving relations among relations. The present series of four studies expands previous work by exploring the applicability of this model of analogy to topography-based rather than merely selectionbased responses and by extending the work into additional relations, including nonsymmetrical ones. In each of the four studies participants pretrained in contextual control over nonarbitrary stimulus relations of sameness and opposition, or of sameness, smaller than, and larger than, learned arbitrary stimulus relations in the presence of these relational cues and derived analogies involving directly trained relations and derived relations of mutual and combinatorial entailment, measured using a variety of productive and selection-based measures. In Experiment 1 participants successfully recognized analogies among stimulus networks containing same and opposite relations; in Experiment 2 analogy was successfully used to extend derived relations to pairs of novel stimuli; in Experiment 3 the procedure used in Experiment 1 was extended to nonsymmetrical comparative relations; in Experiment 4 the procedure used in Experiment 2 was extended to nonsymmetrical comparative relations. Although not every participant showed the effects predicted, overall the procedures occasioned relational responses consistent with an RFT account that have not yet been demonstrated in a behavior-analytic laboratory setting, including productive responding on the basis of analogies.
A Data-Driven Approach for Making Analogies
Cognitive Science, 2017
Making analogies is an important way for people to explain and understand new concepts. Though making analogies is natural for human beings, it is not a trivial task for a dialogue agent. Making analogies requires the agent to establish a correspondence between concepts in two different domains. In this work, we explore a data-driven approach for making analogies automatically. Our proposed approach works with data represented as a flat graphical structure, which can either be designed manually or extracted from Internet data. For a given concept from the base domain, our analogy agent can automatically suggest a corresponding concept from the target domain, and a set of mappings between the relationships each concept has as supporting evidence. We demonstrate the working of this algorithm by both reproducing a classical example of analogy inference and making analogies in new domains generated from DBPedia data.
Elaborating analogies from conceptual models
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 1996
This paper defines and analyses a computational model of similarity which detects analogies between objects based on conceptual descriptions of them, constructed from classification, generalization relations and attributes. Analogies are detected(elaborated) by functions which measure conceptual distances between objects with respect to these semantic modelling abstractions. The model is domain independent and operational upon objects described in non uniform ways. It doesn't require any special forms of knowledge for identifying analogies and distinguishes the importance of distinct object elements. Also, it has a polynomial complexity. Due to these characteristics, it may be used in complex tasks involving intra or inter-domain analogical reasoning. So far the similarity model has been applied in the domain of software engineering.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.