Ernest Davis
Abstract
AI has seen great advances of many kinds recently, but there is one critical area where progress has been extremely slow: ordinary commonsense.
- Allison, B., Guthrie, D. and Guthrie, L. Another look at the data sparsity problem. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue, (2006), 327--334). Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Baader, F., Horrocks, I. and Sattler, U. Descriptions logics. Handbook of Knowledge Representation. F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz and B. Porter, Eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008, 135--179.Google Scholar
- Bar-Hillel, Y. The present status of automatic translation of languges. Advances in Computers. F. Alt, Ed. Academic Press, New York, 1960, 91--163.Google Scholar
- Bojanowski, P., Lajugie, R., Bach, F., Laptev, I., Ponce, J., Schmid, C. and Sivic, J. Weakly supervised action labeling in videos under ordering constraints. ECCV (2014), 628--643.Google Scholar
- Brewka, G., Niemelli, I. and Truszczynski, M. Nonmonotonic reasoning. Handbook of Knowledge Representation. F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz and B. Porter, Eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008, 239--284.Google Scholar
- Cohn, A. and Renz, J. Qualitative spatial reasoning. Handbook of Knowledge Representation. F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz and B. Porter, Eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007, 551--597.Google Scholar
- Conesa, J., Storey, V. and Sugumaran, V. Improving Web-query processing through semantic knowledge. Data and Knowledge Engineering 66, 1 (2008), 18--34. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Conesa, J., Storey, V. and Sugumaran, V. (2010). Usability of upper level ontologies: The case of ResearchCyc. Data and Knowledge Engineering 69 (2010), 343--356. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Curtis, J., Matthews, G., & Baxter, D. On the effective use of Cyc in a question answering system. IJCAI Workshop on Knowledge and Reasoning for Answering Questions, 2005.Google Scholar
- Davis, E. The naive physics perplex. AI Magazine 19, 4 (1998), 51--79; http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1424/1323Google Scholar
- de Kleer, J. Qualitative and quantitative knowledge in classical mechanics. MIT AI Lab, 1975.Google Scholar
- de Kleer, J. and Brown, J. A qualitative physics based on confluences. Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems. D. Bobrow, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985, 7--84.Google Scholar
- Dennett, D. Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. Norton, 2013.Google Scholar
- Etzioni, O. et al. Web-scale extraction in KnowItAll (preliminary results). In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, (2004), 100--110. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=988687 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Etizoni, O., Fader, A., Christensen, J., Soderland, S. and Mausam. Open information extraction: The second generation. IJCAI, 2011, 3--10). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ferrein, A., Fritz, C., and Lakemeyer, G. Using Golog for deliberation and team coordination in robotic soccer. Kuntzliche Intelligenz 19, 1 (2005), 24--30.Google Scholar
- Fisher, M. Temporal representation and reasoning. Handbook of Knowledge Representation. F. Van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, and B. Porter, Ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008, 513--550.Google Scholar
- Forbus, K. Qualitative process theory. Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems. D. Bobrow, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985, 85--168. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Forbus, K., Birnbaum, L., Wagner, E., Baker, J. and Witbrock, M. Analogy, intelligent IR, and knowledge integration for intelligence analysis: Situation tracking and the whodunit problem. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligence Analysis (2005).Google Scholar
- Fromherz, M., Bobrow, D. and de Kleer, J. Model-based computing for design and control of reconfigurable systems. AI Magazine 24, 4 (2003), 120. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gene Ontology Consortium. The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource. Nucleic Acids Research 32 (suppl. 1), 2004, D258--D261.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gentner, D. and Forbus, K. Computational models of analogy. WIREs Cognitive Science 2 (2011), 266--276.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Halpern, J. Reasoning about Uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Havasi, C., Pustjekovsky, J., Speer, R. and Lieberman, H. Digital intuition: Applying common sense using dimensionality reduction. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24, 4 (2009), 24--35; doi:dx.doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2009.72 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hearst, M. Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. ACL, 1992, 539--545. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hofstadter, D. and Sander, E. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. Basic Books, New York, 2013.Google Scholar
- Kalyanpur, A. Structured data and inference in DeepQA. IBM Journal of Research and Development 53, 3--4 (2012), 10:1--14. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kolodner, J. Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kuehne, S. Understanding natural language description of physical phenomena. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 2004.Google Scholar
- Kuipers, B. Qualitative simulation. Artificial Intelligence 29 (1986), 289--338. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lenat, D., Prakash, M. and Shepherd, M. <code>CYC</code>: Using common sense knowledge to overcome brittleness and knowledge acquisition bottlenecks. AI Magazine 6, 4 (1985), 65--85. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Levesque, H., Davis, E. and Morgenstern, L. The Winograd schema challenge. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2012.Google Scholar
- Lovett, A., Tomei, E., Forbus, K. and Usher, J. Solving geometric analogy problems through two-stage analogical mapping. Cognitive Science 33, 7 (2009), 1192--1231.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Miller, G. WordNet: A lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38, 11 (Nov. 1995), 39--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Minsky, M. A framework for representing knowledge. The Psychology of Computer Vision. P. Winston, Ed. McGraw Hill, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, T., Cohen, W., Hruschka, E., Talukdar, P., Betteridge, J. and Carlson, A. Never Ending Learning. AAAI, 2015.Google Scholar
- Mueller, E. Commonsense Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pearl, J. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peppas, P. Belief revision. Handbook of Knowledge Representation. F. Van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, and B. Porter, Eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008, 317--359.Google Scholar
- Pisanelli, D. Ontologies in Medicine. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004.Google Scholar
- Price, C., Pugh, D., Wilson, M. and Snooke, N. (1995). The FLAME system: Automating electrical failure mode and effects analysis (FEMA). In Proceedings of the IEEE Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, (1995), 90--95.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reiter, R. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Russell, B., Torralba, A., Murphy, K. and Freeman, W. Labelme: A database and Web-based tool for image annotation. Intern. J. Computer Vision 77, 1--3 (2008), 157--173. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schank, R. and Abelson, R. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1977.Google Scholar
- Schubert, L. Semantic Representation. AAAI, 2015.Google Scholar
- Shepard, B. et al. A knowledge-base approach to network security: Applying Cyc in the domain of network risk assessment. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, (2005), 1563--1568. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Surdeanu, M. Overview of the tac2013 knowledge base population evaluation: English slot filling and temporal slot filling. In Proceedings of the 6th Text Analysis Conference (2013).Google Scholar
- Winograd, T. Understanding Natural Language. Academic Press, New York, 1972. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Woods, W. What's in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. D. Bobrow and A. Collins, Eds. Academic Press, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
- Wu, W., Li, H., Wang, H. and Zhu, K.Q. Probase: A probabilistic taxonomy for text understanding. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence
Recommendations
Engage AI and Child in Explanatory Dialogue on Commonsense Reasoning
CHI EA '23: Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsHuman-level commonsense reasoning capability is vital for human-AI interaction, enabling AI to understand, anticipate, and respond to human’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Despite the recent advancements in AI commonsense reasoning due to ...
Logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning: a survey
Commonsense reasoning is in principle a central problem in artificial intelligence, but it is a very difficult one. One approach that has been pursued since the earliest days of the field has been to encode commonsense knowledge as statements in a logic-...
Reviews
Lalit P Saxena
The famous saying, "Common sense is not so common," by Voltaire ( Dictionnaire philosophique , 1764), depends upon human experiences and individual perceptions. Commonsense reasoning (CR) in artificial intelligence (AI) includes domains like natural language processing (NLP), computer vision, and robotic manipulation. This paper discusses CR and knowledge in AI. The authors categorize successes in automated CR into four types: taxonomic reasoning, temporal reasoning, action and change, and qualitative reasoning. Taxonomic reasoning defines three basic relations: an individual is an instance of a category; one category is a subset of another; and two categories are disjoint. The temporal reasoning automates knowledge and reasoning about time, duration, and time intervals. The authors describe the theory of action, events, and change by simplifying constraints: events are atomic, single actor, and perfect knowledge. They further provide extensions to domains, including continuous domains, simultaneous events, probabilistic events, multiple agent domains, imperfect knowledge domains, and decision theory. According to the authors, "qualitative reasoning is about the direction of change in interrelated quantities." The authors classify five challenges in automating CR: virtually untouched or partial understanding of the domains, varying logical complexity in different situations, plausible reasoning involvement, long-tail phenomenon, and difficulty in discerning the proper level of abstraction. They further comprise the objectives in CR research, such as reasoning architecture, plausible inference, range of reasoning modes, painstaking analysis of fundamental domains, breadth, independence of experts, applications, and cognitive modeling. The authors divide reasoning techniques into three types: crowdsourcing, web mining, and knowledge-based approaches, which further include mathematically grounded, informal knowledge-based, and large-scale approaches. The authors doubt that the problems of CR will be easily solved. However, they recommend the creation of benchmarks, an evaluation of the program CYC, the integration of various AI approaches, the inclusion of alternative modes of reasoning in mainstream approaches, and a better understanding of human CR. This paper is an interesting read for those who are working in the area of CR and commonsense knowledge in AI applications. Online Computing Reviews Service
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments