Learning and Reasoning in Unknown Domains

Strannegård, Claes; Nizamani, Abdul Rahim; Juel, Jonas; Persson, Ulf

doi:10.1515/jagi-2016-0002

Abstract

In the story Alice in Wonderland, Alice fell down a rabbit hole and suddenly found herself in a strange world called Wonderland. Alice gradually developed knowledge about Wonderland by observing, learning, and reasoning. In this paper we present the system Alice In Wonderland that operates analogously. As a theoretical basis of the system, we define several basic concepts of logic in a generalized setting, including the notions of domain, proof, consistency, soundness, completeness, decidability, and compositionality. We also prove some basic theorems about those generalized notions. Then we model Wonderland as an arbitrary symbolic domain and Alice as a cognitive architecture that learns autonomously by observing random streams of facts from Wonderland. Alice is able to reason by means of computations that use bounded cognitive resources. Moreover, Alice develops her belief set by continuously forming, testing, and revising hypotheses. The system can learn a wide class of symbolic domains and challenge average human problem solvers in such domains as propositional logic and elementary arithmetic.

References

Anderson, J. R., and Lebiere, C. 1998. The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bach, J. 2012. MicroPsi 2: The Next Generation of the MicroPsi Framework. In Artificial General Intelligence. Springer. 11–20.10.1007/978-3-642-35506-6_2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Carroll, L. 2000. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Broadview Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clarke, D.; Whitney, H.; Sutton, G.; and Robert, D. 2013. Detection and learning of floral electric fields by bumblebees. Science 340(6128):66–69.10.1126/science.1230883
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dowe, D. L.; Hernández-Orallo, J.; and Das, P. K. 2011. Compression and intelligence: social environments and communication. In Artificial General Intelligence. Springer. 204–211.10.1007/978-3-642-22887-2_21
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goertzel, B.; Pennachin, C.; and Geisweiller, N. 2014. The OpenCog Framework. In Engineering General Intelligence, Part 2. Springer. 3–29.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gould, J. L.; Gould, C. G.; et al. 1988. The honey bee. Scientific American Library.10.1016/S0065-2806(08)60022-3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hansson, S. O.; Fermé, E. L.; Cantwell, J.; and Falappa, M. A. 2001. Credibility Limited Revision. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 66(04):1581–1596.10.2307/2694963
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Katayama, S. 2015. Towards Human-Level Inductive Functional Programming. In Artificial General Intelligence. Springer. 111–120.10.1007/978-3-319-21365-1_12
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kitzelmann, E. 2010. Inductive Programming: A Survey of Program Synthesis Techniques. In Approaches and Applications of Inductive Programming. Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-11931-6_3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Laird, J. 2012. The Soar cognitive architecture. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7688.001.0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Muggleton, S., and Chen, J. 2012. Guest editorial: special issue on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP 2011). Machine Learning 1–2.10.1007/s10994-012-5315-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Negri, S.; Von Plato, J.; and Ranta, A. 2008. Structural proof theory. Cambridge University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nizamani, A. R., and Strannegård, C. 2014. Learning Propositional Logic From Scratch. In The 28th annual workshop of the Swedish Artificial Intelligence Society (SAIS).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Piaget, J. 1937. La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Delachaux & Niestlé.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Popper, K. R. 1972. Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Clarendon Press Oxford.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rosenbloom, P. S. 2013. The Sigma Cognitive Architecture and System. AISB Quarterly 136:4–13.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Simon, H. A. 1982. Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically Grounded Economic Reason, volume 3. MIT press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Steunebrink, B. R.; Koutník, J.; Thórisson, K. R.; Nivel, E.; and Schmidhuber, J. 2013. Resource-bounded machines are motivated to be effective, efficient, and curious. In Artificial General Intelligence. Springer. 119–129.10.1007/978-3-642-39521-5_13
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Strannegård, C.; Ulfsbäcker, S.; Hedqvist, D.; and Gärling, T. 2010. Reasoning Processes in Propositional Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19(3):283–314.10.1007/s10849-009-9102-0
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Strannegård, C.; Nizamani, A. R.; Sjöberg, A.; and Engström, F. 2013. Bounded Kolmogorov Complexity Based on Cognitive Models. In Kühnberger, K. U.; Rudolph, S.; and Wang, P., eds., Proceedings of AGI 2013, Beijing, China. Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-39521-5_14
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Turing, A. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59(236):433–460.10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Von Glasersfeld, E. 1995. Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. Studies in Mathematics Education Series: 6. ERIC.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wang, P., and Hammer, P. 2015. Assumptions of Decision-Making Models in AGI. In Artificial General Intelligence. Springer. 197–207.10.1007/978-3-319-21365-1_21
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wiese, K. 2002. The Crustacean Nervous System. Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-04843-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Learning and Reasoning in Unknown Domains

Abstract

Paradigm

My account