Commonsense Reasoning: An Event Calculus Based Approach | Guide books

Commonsense Reasoning: An Event Calculus Based ApproachNovember 2014

November 2014

Author:
Erik T. Mueller

Publisher:

Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
340 Pine Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco
CA
United States

ISBN:978-0-12-801647-3

Published:11 November 2014

Pages:

516

Available at Amazon

Bibliometrics

Abstract

To endow computers with common sense is one of the major long-term goals of artificial intelligence research. One approach to this problem is to formalize commonsense reasoning using mathematical logic. Commonsense Reasoning: An Event Calculus Based Approach is a detailed, high-level reference on logic-based commonsense reasoning. It uses the event calculus, a highly powerful and usable tool for commonsense reasoning, which Erik Mueller demonstrates as the most effective tool for the broadest range of applications. He provides an up-to-date work promoting the use of the event calculus for commonsense reasoning, and bringing into one place information scattered across many books and papers. Mueller shares the knowledge gained in using the event calculus and extends the literature with detailed event calculus solutions that span many areas of the commonsense world. The Second Edition features new chapters on commonsense reasoning using unstructured information including the Watson system, commonsense reasoning using answer set programming, and techniques for acquisition of commonsense knowledge including crowdsourcing. Drawing upon years of practical experience and using numerous examples and illustrative applications Erik Mueller shows you the keys to mastering commonsense reasoning. You ll be able to: Understand techniques for automated commonsense reasoning Incorporate commonsense reasoning into software solutions Acquire a broad understanding of the field of commonsense reasoning. Gain comprehensive knowledge of the human capacity for commonsense reasoning Table of Contents Part I: Foundations Part II: Commonsense Phenomena Part III: Commonsense Domains Part IV: Default Reasoning Part V: Programs and Applications Part VI: Logical and Non-logical Methods Part VII: Knowledge Acquisition Part VIII: Conclusion Part IX: Appendices

References

Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist , 36 (7), 715-729.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ahl, D. H. (Ed.). (1973). 101 BASIC computer games . Maynard, MA: Digital Equipment Corporation.Google Scholar
Aho, A. V., Hopcroft, J. E., & Ullman, J. D. (1983). Data structures and algorithms . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
Aho, A. V., & Ullman, J. D. (1979). Universality of data retrieval languages. In Conference record of the sixth annual ACM symposium on principles of programming languages (pp. 110-120). New York: ACM. Google Scholar
Ali, S. S., & Shapiro, S. C. (1993). Natural language processing using a propositional semantic network with structured variables. Minds and Machines , 3 (4), 421-451.Google ScholarCross Ref
Allen, J. F. (1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM , 26 (11), 832-843. Google ScholarDigital Library
Allen, J. F. (1984). Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence , 23 , 123-154. Google ScholarDigital Library
Allen, J. F. (1991). Planning as temporal reasoning. In J. F. Allen, R. E. Fikes, & E. Sandewall (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 3-14). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Allen, J. F. (1995). Natural language understanding (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/ Cummings. Google Scholar
Allen, J. F., Hendler, J., & Tate, A. (Eds.). (1990). Readings in planning . San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Alshawi, H. (Ed.). (1992). The Core Language Engine . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Antoniou, G. (1997). Nonmonotonic reasoning . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Apache. (2014). Lucene search engine. http://lucene.apache.org.Google Scholar
Armstrong, S. (Ed.). (1993). Using large corpora . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bacchus, F., Tenenberg, J., & Koomen, J. A. (1991). A non-reified temporal logic. Artificial Intelligence , 52 , 87-108. Google ScholarDigital Library
Baillargeon, R. (1995). Physical reasoning in infancy. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 181-204). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, A. B. (1991). Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence , 49 (1-3), 5-23. Google ScholarDigital Library
Balint, A., Belov, A., Heule, M. J. H., & Jarvisalo, M. (Eds.). (2013). Proceedings of SAT competition 2013: Solver and benchmark descriptions. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Balzer, R. (1985). A 15 year perspective on automatic programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , SE-11 (11), 1257-1268. Google ScholarDigital Library
Balzer, R., Goldman, N., & Wile, D. (1978). Informality in program specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , SE-4 (2), 94-103. Google ScholarDigital Library
Baral, C. (1995). Reasoning about actions: Non-deterministic effects, constraints, and qualification. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 2017-2026). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Baral, C. (2003). Knowledge representation, reasoning and declarative problem solving . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Baral, C., & Gelfond, M. (1997). Reasoning about effects of concurrent actions. Journal of Logic Programming , 31 (1-3), 85-117.Google ScholarCross Ref
Baral, C., Tran, N., & Tuan, L.-C. (2002). Reasoning about actions in a probabilistic setting. In Proceedings of the eighteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and fourteenth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 507-512). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Baum, E. B. (2004). What is thought? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Bayardo Jr., R. J., & Schrag, R. C. (1997). Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real world SAT instances. In Proceedings of the fourteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and ninth innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference (pp. 203-208). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Beale, S., Nirenburg, S., Mahesh, K., (1995). Semantic analysis in the Mikrokosmos machine translation project. In: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Natural Language Processing . National Electronics and Computer Technology Center, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 297-307.Google Scholar
Beaudoin, L. (1994). Goal processing in autonomous agents. Doctoral dissertation. School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England.Google Scholar
Belasco, A., Curtis, J., Kahlert, R. C., Klein, C., Mayans, C., & Reagan, P. (2004). Representing knowledge gaps effectively. In D. Karagiannis & U. Reimer (Eds.), Practical aspects of knowledge management (Vol. 3336, pp. 159-164). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Berland, M., & Charniak, E. (1999). Finding parts in very large corpora. In Thirty-seventh annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Proceedings of the conference (pp. 57-64). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Bibel, W., & Nicolas, J.-M. (1989). The role of logic for data and knowledge bases: A brief survey. In J.W. Schmidt & C. Thanos (Eds.), Foundations of knowledge base management (pp. 3-22). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Biere, A., Heule, M. J. H., van Maaren, H., & Walsh, T. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of satisfiability . Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Bihlmeyer, R., Faber, W., Ielpa, G., Lio, V., & Pfeifer, G. (2014). DLV-User manual. http://www.dlvsystem.com/html/DLV_User_Manual.html.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, L. (1991). Rigor mortis: A response to Nilsson's "Logic and artificial intelligence". Artificial Intelligence , 47 (1-3), 57-77. Google ScholarDigital Library
Blackburn, P., & Bos, J. (2005). Representation and inference for natural language: A first course in computational semantics . Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Blum, A. L., & Furst, M. L. (1997). Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence , 90 (1-2), 281-300. Google ScholarDigital Library
Bobrow, D. G. (1980). Editor's preface [Special issue on non-monotonic reasoning]. Artificial Intelligence , 13 (1-2), 1-4.Google ScholarDigital Library
Bobrow, D. G., & Winograd, T. (1977). An overview of KRL, a knowledge representation language. Cognitive Science , 1 (1), 3-46.Google Scholar
Bornscheuer, S.-E., & Thielscher, M. (1996). Explicit and implicit indeterminism: Reasoning about uncertain and contradictory specifications of dynamic systems (Tech. Rep. No. TR-96-009). Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Brachman, R. J., & Levesque, H. J. (2004). Knowledge representation and reasoning . San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1978). On the relation between the natural logic of reasoning and standard logic. Psychological Review , 85 (1), 1-21.Google ScholarCross Ref
Braine, M. D. S., & O'Brien, D. P. (Eds.). (1998). Mental logic . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brandano, S. (2001). The event calculus assessed. In Eighth international symposium on temporal representation and reasoning (TIME-01) (pp. 7-12). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E., Israel, D. J., & Pollack, M. E. (1988). Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence , 4 , 349-355.Google Scholar
Brewka, G., Dix, J., & Konolige, K. (1997). Nonmonotonic reasoning: An overview . Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Briggs, R. (1999). The snowman . New York: Random House (adapted by Michelle Knudsen; illustrated by Maggie Downer).Google Scholar
Brooks, R. A. (1985). A robust layered control system for a mobile robot. A.I. Memo 864. Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
Brooks, R. A. (1990). The behavior language: User's guide. A.I. Memo 1227. Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
Brown, F. M. (Ed.). (1987). The frame problem in artificial intelligence: Proceedings of the 1987 workshop. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Buss, S. R. (Ed.). (1998). Handbook of proof theory . Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P., Pearce, D., & Valverde, A. (2005). Reducing propositional theories in equilibrium logic to logic programs. In C. Bento, A. Cardoso, & G. Dias (Eds.), Progress in artificial intelligence, twelfth Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 3808, pp. 4-17). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Calimeri, F., Faber, W., Gebser, M., Ianni, G., Kaminski, R., Krennwallner, T., Leone, N., Ricca, F., & Schaub, T. (2012). ASP-Core-2 input language format. https://www.mat.unical.it/aspcomp2013/files/ASP-CORE-2.03b.pdf.Google Scholar
Calimeri, F., Ianni, G., & Ricca, F. (2014). The third open answer set programming competition. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , 14 (1), 117-135.Google ScholarCross Ref
Cassimatis, N. L. (2002). Polyscheme: A cognitive architecture for integrating multiple representation and inference schemes. Doctoral dissertation. Program in Media Arts and Sciences, School of Architecture and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
Cassimatis, N. L. (2006). A cognitive substrate for achieving human-level intelligence. AI Magazine , 27 (2), 45-56. Google ScholarDigital Library
Cassimatis, N. L., Trafton, J. G., Bugajska, M. D., & Schultz, A. C. (2004). Integrating cognition, perception and action through mental simulation in robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems , 49 (1-2), 13-23.Google Scholar
Castilho, M. A., Gasquet, O., & Herzig, A. (1999). Formalizing action and change in modal logic I: The frame problem. Journal of Logic and Computation , 9 (5), 701-735.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ceccato, S. (1966). Automatic translation of languages. In A. Ghizzetti, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, & Advanced Study Institute (Eds.), Automatic translation of languages: Papers presented at NATO summer school held in Venice, July 1962 (pp. 55-108). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, N., & Jurafsky, D. (2008). Unsupervised learning of narrative event chains. In K. McKeown, J. D. Moore, S. Teufel, J. Allan, & S. Furui (Eds.), Proceedings of the forty-sixth annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 789-797). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chambers, N., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Unsupervised learning of narrative schemas and their participants. In K.-Y. Su, J. Su, & J. Wiebe (Eds.), Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and the fourth international joint conference on natural language processing of the AFNLP (pp. 602-610). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Charniak, E. (1972). Toward a model of children's story comprehension (Tech. Rep. No. AITR-266). Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
Charniak, E. (2000). A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In First meeting of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Proceedings of the conference (pp. 132-139). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Charniak, E., & McDermott, D. V. (1985). Introduction to artificial intelligence . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
Charniak, E., Riesbeck, C. K., & McDermott, D. V. (1980). Artificial intelligence programming . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Chklovski, T. (2003a). Learner: A system for acquiring commonsense knowledge by analogy. In Proceedings of the second international conference on knowledge capture (pp. 4-12). New York: ACM. Google Scholar
Chklovski, T. (2003b). Using analogy to acquire commonsense knowledge from human contributors (Tech. Rep. No. AITR-2003-002). Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Chklovski, T., & Fredette, M. (2001). Learner. http://web.media.mit.edu/~timc/learner/learner-manual.pdf.Google Scholar
Chklovski, T., & Mihalcea, R. (2002). Building a sense tagged corpus with Open Mind Word Expert. In Proceedings of the SIGLEX/SENSEVAL workshop on word sense disambiguation: Recent successes and future directions (pp. 116-122). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Chu-Carroll, J., Fan, J., Boguraev, B. K., Carmel, D., Sheinwald, D., & Welty, C. (2012). Finding needles in the haystack: Search and candidate generation. IBM Journal of Research and Development , 56 (3-4), 6:1-6:12. Google Scholar
Church, A. (1956). Introduction to mathematical logic (Vol. I). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Church, A. (2004). A note on the Entscheidungsproblem. In M. Davis (Ed.), The undecidable: Basic papers on undecidable propositions, unsolvable problems and computable functions (corrected ed., pp. 108-115). Mineola, NY: Dover (Original work published 1936)Google Scholar
Cicekli, N. K., & Yildirim, Y. (2000). Formalizing workflows using the event calculus. In M. T. Ibrahim, J. Kung, & N. Revell (Eds.), Database and expert systems applications (Vol. 1873, pp. 222-231). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Clark, K. L. (1978). Negation as failure. In H. Gallaire & J. Minker (Eds.), Logic and data bases (pp. 293-322). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Clark, K. L., & Tärnlund, S.-A. (1977). A first order theory of data and programs. In B. Gilchrist (Ed.), Proceedings of the IFIP congress 77 (pp. 939-944). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Clark, P., Harrison, P., Jenkins, T., Thompson, J. A., & Wojcik, R. H. (2005). Acquiring and using world knowledge using a restricted subset of English. In I. Russell & Z. Markov (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference (pp. 506-511). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Clark, P., & Porter, B. (2000). KM-The knowledge machine 1.4.0: KM's situation mechanism. Austin, TX: Department of Computer Science, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Clark, P., & Porter, B. (2004). KM--The Knowledge Machine 2.0: Users [sic] manual. Austin, TX: Department of Computer Science, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Clocksin, W. F., & Mellish, C. S. (2003). Programming in Prolog (5th ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. R. (1995). Empirical methods for artificial intelligence . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence , 42 , 213-261. Google ScholarDigital Library
Cohn, A. G., Bennett, B., Gooday, J., & Gotts, N. M. (1997). Representing and reasoning with qualitative spatial relations about regions. In O. Stock (Ed.), Spatial and temporal reasoning (pp. 97-134). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Collins, M. (1999). Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. Doctoral dissertation. Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Google Scholar
Collins, M. (2003). Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. Computational Linguistics , 29 (4), 589-637. Google ScholarDigital Library
Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 8 , 240-247.Google Scholar
Cook, S. A. (1971). The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (pp. 151-158). New York: ACM. Google Scholar
Crawford, J. M., & Etherington, D. W. (1992). Formalizing reasoning about change: A qualitative reasoning approach. In W. R. Swartout (Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 577-583). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Crevier, D. (1993). AI: The tumultuous history of the search for artificial intelligence . New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
Curry, H. B. (1963). Foundations of mathematical logic . New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cycorp. (2002a). Ontological engineer's handbook version 0.7. Austin, TX: Cycorp.Google Scholar
Cycorp. (2002b). OpenCyc release 0.7.0 [Computer software]. Austin, TX: Cycorp.Google Scholar
Cycorp. (2002). OpenCyc selected vocabulary and upper ontology. Austin, TX: Cycorp.Google Scholar
Cycorp. (2014a). Introduction to Cyc inferencing. http://www.cyc.com/documentation/introduction-cyc-inferencing.Google Scholar
Cycorp. (2014b). Negation in CycL. http://www.cyc.com/documentation/negation-in-cycl.Google Scholar
Cycorp. (2014c). Ontological engineer's handbook. http://www.cyc.com/documentation/ontological-engineering-handbook.Google Scholar
Cycorp. (2014d). Resolution in CycL. http://www.cyc.com/documentation/resolution-cycl.Google Scholar
Cycorp. (2014e). The Cyc knowledge base. http://www.cyc.com/cyc/kb.Google Scholar
Cycorp. (2014f). KE text. http://www.cyc.com/documentation/ke-text.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, K., McDowell, J., & Stabler, E. P., Jr. (1989). Knowledge representation for commonsense reasoning with text. Computational Linguistics 15 (3), 149-170. Google ScholarDigital Library
Davidson, D. (2001). The logical form of action sentences. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Essays on actions and events (2nd ed., pp. 105-148). Oxford: Oxford University Press (Original work published 1967)Google Scholar
Davis, M. (1959). Lecture notes on mathematical logic. Based on student notes by Allen Weingarten, Fall 1959. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Davis, M. (1980). The mathematics of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence , 13 (1-2), 73-80.Google ScholarDigital Library
Davis, E. (1990). Representations of commonsense knowledge . San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Davis, E. (1992). Axiomatizing qualitative process theory. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, & W. R. Swartout (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 177-188). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Davis, E. (1995). A highly expressive language of spatial constraints (Tech. Rep. No. TR1995-714). New York: Computer Science Department, New York University. Google Scholar
Davis, E. (1999). Guide to axiomatizing domains in first-order logic. Electronic News Journal on Reasoning about Actions and Change , 3 (1), 25-28.Google Scholar
Davis, M., Logemann, G., & Loveland, D. (1962). A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM , 5 (7), 394-397. Google ScholarDigital Library
Davis, M., & Putnam, H. (1960). A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM , 7 (3), 201-215. Google ScholarDigital Library
DBpedia. (2014). DBpedia. http://dbpedia.org.Google Scholar
de Kleer, J. (1975). Qualitative and quantitative knowledge in classical mechanics (Tech. Rep. No. AITR-352). Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
de Kleer, J., & Brown, J. S. (1984). A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artificial Intelligence , 24 (1-3), 7-83. Google ScholarDigital Library
de Nivelle, H. (1999). Bliksem 1.10 user manual. Saarbrucken, Germany: Max-Planck Institut für Informatik.Google Scholar
Dean, T., & Boddy, M. (1988). Reasoning about partially ordered events. Artificial Intelligence , 36 (3), 375-399. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint processing . San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science , 41 (6), 391-407.Google ScholarDigital Library
Denecker, M., Dupre, D. T., & Belleghem, K. V. (1998). An inductive definition approach to ramifications. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science , 3 (007), 1-43.Google Scholar
Denecker, M., Missiaen, L., & Bruynooghe, M. (1992). Temporal reasoning with abductive event calculus. In B. Neumann (Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 384-388). Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Google Scholar
DIMACS. (1993). Satisfiability suggested format (Tech. Rep.). Piscataway, NJ: Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science.Google Scholar
Dimopoulos, Y., Kakas, A. C., & Michael, L. (2004). Reasoning about actions and change in answer set programming. In V. Lifschitz & I. Niemela (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference on logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning (Vol. 2923, pp. 61-73). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Doherty, P. (1994). Reasoning about action and change using occlusion. In A. G. Cohn (Ed.), Proceedings of the eleventh European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 401-405). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Doherty, P. (1996). pmon+: A fluent logic for action and change. Formal specification, version 1.0 (Tech. Rep. No. LiTH-IDA-R-96-33). Linkoping, Sweden: Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University.Google Scholar
Doherty, P., Gustafsson, J., Karlsson, L., & Kvarnström, J. (1998). TAL: Temporal Action Logics language specification and tutorial. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science , 3 (015), 1-32.Google Scholar
Doherty, P., & Kvarnström, J. (1997). Tackling the qualification problem using fluent dependency constraints: Preliminary report. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science , 2 (016), 1-14.Google Scholar
Doherty, P., & ¿ukaszewicz, W. (1994). Circumscribing features and fluents. In D.M. Gabbay & H. J. Ohlbach (Eds.), Temporal logic (Vol. 827, pp. 82-100). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Doherty, P., ¿ukaszewicz, W., & Szalas, A. (1997). Computing circumscription revisited: A reduction algorithm. Journal of Automated Reasoning , 18 (3), 297-336. Google ScholarDigital Library
Domeshek, E., Jones, E., & Ram, A. (1999). Capturing the contents of complex narratives. In A. Ram & K. Moorman (Eds.), Understanding language understanding: Computational models of reading (pp. 73-105). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R., Wall, R. E., & Peters, S. (1981). Introduction to Montague semantics . Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Du, D., Gu, J., & Pardalos, P.M. (Eds.). (1997). Satisfiability problem: Theory and applications (Vol. 35). Boston, MA: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Dyer, M. G. (1983). In-depth understanding: A computer model of integrated processing for narrative comprehension . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Flum, J., & Thomas, W. (1994). Mathematical logic (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Eiter, T. (Ed.). (2014). Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Elgot-Drapkin, J. J., Kraus, S., Miller, M., Nirkhe, M., & Perlis, D. (1999). Active logics: A unified formal approach to episodic reasoning (Tech. Rep. No. CS-TR-4072). College Park, MD: Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Elgot-Drapkin, J. J., & Perlis, D. (1990). Reasoning situated in time I: Basic concepts. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence , 2 (1), 75-98. Google ScholarDigital Library
Elkan, C. (1996). Reasoning about unknown, counterfactual, and nondeterministic actions in first-order logic. In G. McCalla (Ed.), Advances in artificial intelligence (Vol. 1081, pp. 54-68). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Enderton, H. B. (2001). A mathematical introduction to logic (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, E. A., Schor, M. I., Iyer, B. S., Lally, A., Brown, E.W., & Cwiklik, J. (2012). Making Watson fast. IBM Journal of Research and Development , 56 (3-4), 15:1-15:12. Google Scholar
Ernst, M., Millstein, T. D., & Weld, D. S. (1997). Automatic SAT-compilation of planning problems. In Proceedings of the fifteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1169-1176). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Eshghi, K. (1988). Abductive planning with event calculus. In R. A. Kowalski & K. A. Bowen (Eds.), Logic programming: Proceedings of the fifth international conference and symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 562-579). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Etherington, D. W. (1988). Reasoning with incomplete information . Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Eves, H. (1990). Foundations and fundamental concepts of mathematics (3rd ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Fahlman, S. E. (1974). A planning system for robot construction tasks. Artificial Intelligence , 5 (1), 1-49.Google ScholarDigital Library
Fahlman, S. E. (1979). NETL: A system for representing and using real-world knowledge . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Falkenhainer, B. C. (1988). Learning from physical analogies: A study in analogy and the explanation process (Tech. Rep. No. UIUCDCS-R-88-1479). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Falkenhainer, B. C., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence , 41 (1), 1-63. Google ScholarDigital Library
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferraris, P., Lee, J., & Lifschitz, V. (2007). A new perspective on stable models. In M.M. Veloso (Ed.), Proceedings of the twentieth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 372-379). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Ferraris, P., Lee, J., & Lifschitz, V. (2011). Stable models and circumscription. Artificial Intelligence , 175 (1), 236-263. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ferrucci, D. (2012). Introduction to "This is Watson". IBM Journal of Research and Development , 56 (3-4), 1:1-1:15. Google Scholar
Ferrucci, D., & Brown, E. W. (2012). AdaptWatson: A methodology for developing and adapting Watson technology (Tech. Rep. No. RC25244). Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM Research Division.Google Scholar
Ferrucci, D., Brown, E. W., Chu-Carroll, J., Fan, J., Gondek, D., Kalyanpur, A. A., Lally, A., Murdock, J. W., Nyberg, E., Prager, J. M., Schlaefer, N., & Welty, C. (2010). Building Watson: An overview of the DeepQA project. AI Magazine , 31 (3), 59-79.Google ScholarDigital Library
Ferrucci, D., & Lally, A. (2004). Building an example application with the Unstructured Information Management Architecture. IBM Systems Journal , 43 (3), 455-475. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ferrucci, D., Levas, A., Bagchi, S., Gondek, D., & Mueller, E. T. (2013). Watson: Beyond Jeopardy! Artificial Intelligence , 199-200 , 93-105.Google Scholar
Fikes, R. E., Hart, P. E., & Nilsson, N. J. (1972a). Learning and executing generalized robot plans. Artificial Intelligence , 3 , 251-288.Google ScholarDigital Library
Fikes, R. E., Hart, P. E., & Nilsson, N. J. (1972b). Some new directions in robot problem solving. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 7 (pp. 405-430). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fikes, R. E., & Nilsson, N. J. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence , 2 , 189-208. Google ScholarDigital Library
Finger, J. J. (1987). Exploiting constraints in design synthesis. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Google Scholar
Forbus, K. D. (1984). Qualitative process theory. Artificial Intelligence , 24 (1-3), 85-168. Google ScholarDigital Library
Forbus, K. D. (2001). Exploring analogy in the large. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 23-58). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1997). Qualitative mental models: Simulations or memories? In Proceedings of the eleventh international workshop on qualitative reasoning (pp. 1-8). Cortona, Italy.Google Scholar
Ford, K. M., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (Eds.). (1996). The robot's dilemma revisited: The frame problem in artificial intelligence . Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1967). Begriffsschrift , a formula language, modeled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought. In J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879-1931 (pp. 1-82). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Original work published 1879)Google Scholar
Freud, A. (1946). The ego and the mechanisms of defence . New York: International Universities (Original work published 1936)Google Scholar
Fuchs, N. E., & Schwertel, U. (2002). Reasoning in Attempto Controlled English (Tech. Rep. No. ifi-2002.01). Zürich: Institut für Informatik der Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
Fuchs, N. E., Schwertel, U., & Schwitter, R. (1999). Attempto Controlled English (ACE) language manual version 3.0 (Tech. Rep. No. 99.03). Zürich: Institut für Informatik der Universität Zürich. Google Scholar
Gabbay, D. M., & Guenthner, F. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C. J., & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (Vol. 3: Nonmonotonic reasoning and uncertain reasoning). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Gabbay, D. M., & Ohlbach, H. J. (1992). Quantifier elimination in second-order predicate logic. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, & W. R. Swartout (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 425-435). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Garcia, D., Havasi, C., & Todd, K. (2002). Interactively improving the Open Mind database: Game for interactive Open Mind Improvement (GIOMI). http://web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/Teaching/Common-Sense-Course/Projects/Giomi/.Google Scholar
Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness . San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Google Scholar
Garnier, R., & Taylor, J. (1996). 100% mathematical proof . Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., & Schaub, T. (2013). Answer set solving in practice . San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool. Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., & Thiele, S. (2009). On the input language of ASP grounder Gringo. In E. Erdem, F. Lin, & T. Schaub (Eds.), Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, tenth international conference (Vol. 5753, pp. 502-508). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Ostrowski, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., & Schaub, T. (2010). A user's guide to gringo, clasp, clingo, and iclingo. http://sourceforge.net/projects/potassco/files/potassco_guide/2010-10-04/guide.pdf/download.Google Scholar
Geffner, H. (1990). Causal theories for nonmonotonic reasoning. In T. Dietterich & W. R. Swartout (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 524-530). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. (2008). Answer sets. In F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, & B. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of knowledge representation (pp. 285-316). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M., & Kahl, Y. (2014). Knowledge representation, reasoning, and the design of intelligent agents: The answer-set programming approach . New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1988). The stable model semantics for logic programming. In R. A. Kowalski & K. A. Bowen (Eds.), Logic programming: Proceedings of the fifth international conference and symposium (Vol. 2, pp. 1070-1080). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1991). Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing , 9 (3-4), 365-386.Google ScholarDigital Library
Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1993). Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming , 17 (2-4), 301-321.Google ScholarCross Ref
Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1998). Action languages. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science , 3 (016), 1-15.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V., & Rabinov, A. (1991). What are the limitations of the situation calculus? In R. S. Boyer (Ed.), Automated reasoning: Essays in honor of Woody Bledsoe (pp. 167-179). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Genesereth, M. R., & Nilsson, N. J. (1987). Logical foundations of artificial intelligence . Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science , 7 (2), 155-170.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. N. (Eds.). (2001). The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gentzen, G. (1969). Investigations into logical deduction. In M. E. Szabo (Ed.), The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen (pp. 68-131). Amsterdam: North-Holland (Original work published 1935)Google Scholar
Ghallab, M., Nau, D., & Traverso, P. (2004). Automated planning: Theory and practice . San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Gildea, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Automatic labeling of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics , 28 (3), 245-288. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ginsberg, M. L. (Ed.). (1987). Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning . Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Ginsberg, M. L. (1991). Marvin Minsky, the society of mind. Artificial Intelligence , 48 , 335-339. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ginsberg, M. L., & Smith, D. E. (1987a). Reasoning about action II: The qualification problem. In F. M. Brown (Ed.), The frame problem in artificial intelligence: proceedings of the 1987 workshop (pp. 259-287). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, M. L., & Smith, D. E. (1987b). Reasoning about action I: A possible worlds approach. In F. M. Brown (Ed.), The frame problem in artificial intelligence: proceedings of the 1987 workshop (pp. 233-258). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, M. L., & Smith, D. E. (1988a). Reasoning about action II: The qualification problem. Artificial Intelligence , 35 (3), 311-342. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ginsberg, M. L., & Smith, D. E. (1988b). Reasoning about action I: A possible worlds approach. Artificial Intelligence , 35 (2), 165-195. Google ScholarDigital Library
Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N. C., & Turner, H. (2004). Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence , 153 , 49-104. Google ScholarDigital Library
Giunchiglia, E., & Lifschitz, V. (1998). An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the fifteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and tenth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 623-630). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Giunchiglia, E., & Sebastiani, R. (1999). Applying the Davis-Putnam procedure to nonclausal formulas. In Proceedings of the sixth congress of the Italian association for artificial intelligence. Bologna. Google Scholar
Giunchiglia, F., & Ghidini, C. (1998). Local models semantics, or contextual reasoning = locality + compatibility. In A. G. Cohn, L. K. Schubert, & S. C. Shapiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 282-289). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1967). The completeness of the axioms of the functional calculus of logic. In J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879-1931 (pp. 582-591). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Original work published 1930)Google Scholar
Golub, G. H., & Van Loan, C. F. (1996). Matrix computations (3rd ed.). Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
Gomes, C. P., Kautz, H., Sabharwal, A., & Selman, B. (2008). Satisfiability solvers. In F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, & B. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of knowledge representation (pp. 89-134). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gondek, D. C., Lally, A., Kalyanpur, A., Murdock, J. W., Duboue, P. A., Zhang, L., Pan, Y., Qiu, Z. M., & Welty, C. (2012). A framework for merging and ranking of answers in DeepQA. IBM Journal of Research and Development , 56 (3-4), 14:1-14:12. Google Scholar
Gordon, A. S. (2004). Strategy representation: An analysis of planning knowledge . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. M. (2014). Inferential commonsense knowledge from text. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Gordon, J.M., & Schubert, L. K. (2010). Quantificational sharpening of commonsense knowledge. In C. Havasi, D. B. Lenat, & B. D. Van Durme (Eds.), Commonsense knowledge: Papers from the AAAI fall symposium (pp. 27-32). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. M., & Schubert, L. K. (2011). Discovering commonsense entailment rules implicit in sentences. In Proceedings of the TextInfer 2011 workshop on textual entailment (pp. 59-63). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Gordon, J. M., & Schubert, L. K. (2012). Using textual patterns to learn expected event frequencies. In Proceedings of the joint workshop on automatic knowledge base construction and web-scale knowledge extraction (pp. 122-127). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Gordon, J. M., Van Durme, B., & Schubert, L. K. (2010). Learning from the web: Extracting general world knowledge from noisy text. In V. Nastase, R. Navigli, & F. Wu (Eds.), Collaboratively-built knowledge sources and artificial intelligence: Papers from the AAAI workshop (pp. 8-13). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Green, C. C. (1969). The application of theorem proving to question-answering systems. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Google Scholar
Green, Jr., B. F., Wolf, A. K., Chomsky, C., & Laughery, K. (1961). Baseball: An automatic question-answerer. In Proceedings of the western joint computer conference (pp. 219-224). New York: National Joint Computer Committee. Google Scholar
Greiner, R., & Lenat, D. B. (1980). A representation language language. In R.M. Balzer (Ed.), Proceedings of the first national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 165-169). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Grosof, B. (1984). Default reasoning as circumscription: A translation of default logic into circumscription or maximizing defaults is minimizing predicates. In Proceedings of the non-monotonic reasoning workshop (pp. 115-124). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Guha, R. V. (1990). The representation of defaults in Cyc (Tech. Rep. No. ACT-CYC-083-90). Austin, TX: Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation.Google Scholar
Guha, R. V. (1992). Contexts: A formalization and some applications. Doctoral dissertation. Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Google Scholar
Guha, R. V., & Lenat, D. B. (1990a). CYC: A midterm report. AI Magazine 11 (3), 32-59. Google ScholarDigital Library
Guha, R. V., & Lenat, D. B. (1990b). CycL: The Cyc representation language, part 4 (Tech. Rep. No. ACT-CYC-154-90). Austin, TX: Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation.Google Scholar
Guha, R. V., & Lenat, D. B. (1994). Enabling agents to work together. Communications of the ACM , 37 (7), 127-142. Google ScholarDigital Library
Guicciardini, N. (1999). Reading the Principia: The debate on Newton's mathematical methods for natural philosophy from 1687 to 1736 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, J., & Doherty, P. (1996). Embracing occlusion in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In L. C. Aiello, J. Doyle, & S. C. Shapiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 87-98). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Haas, A. R. (1987). The case for domain-specific frame axioms. In F. M. Brown (Ed.), The frame problem in artificial intelligence: Proceedings of the 1987 workshop (pp. 343-348). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Halpern, M. (1966). Foundations of the case for natural-language programming. In AFIPS fall joint computer conference (pp. 639-649). Washington, DC: Spartan Books. Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. (1999). On the adequacy of modal logic. Electronic News Journal on Reasoning About Actions and Change , 3 (3), 1-5.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. (2000). On the adequacy of modal logic, II: A response to McCarthy. Electronic News Journal on Reasoning About Actions and Change , 4 (1), 1-3.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. (2003). Reasoning about uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Halpin, H., Moore, J. D., & Robertson, J. (2004). Automatic analysis of plot for story rewriting. In D. Lin & D. Wu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 127-133). Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A. G. (1988). Logic for mathematicians (revised ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, S., & Madigan, D. (2005). Probabilistic temporal reasoning. In M. Fisher, D. Gabbay, & L. Vila (Eds.), Handbook of temporal reasoning in artificial intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 315-342). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hanks, S., & McDermott, D. V. (1985). Temporal reasoning and default logics (Tech. Rep. No. YALE/DCS/tr430). New Haven, CT: Computer Science Department, Yale University.Google Scholar
Hanks, S., & McDermott, D. V. (1986). Default reasoning, nonmonotonic logics, and the frame problem. In Proceedings of the fifth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 328-333). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Hanks, S., & McDermott, D.V. (1987). Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence , 33 (3), 379-412. Google ScholarDigital Library
Hansen, P. C. (1998). Rank-deficient and discrete ill-posed problems . Philadelphia: SIAM. Google Scholar
Harel, D. (1984). Dynamic logic. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 497-604). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Havasi, C. (2009). Discovering semantic relations using singular value decomposition based techniques. Doctoral dissertation. Computer Science Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA. Google Scholar
Havasi, C., Speer, R., & Alonso, J. B. (2007). ConceptNet 3: A flexible, multilingual semantic network for common sense knowledge. In Recent advances in natural language processing. Borovets, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Havasi, C., Speer, R., & Alonso, J. B. (2009). ConceptNet: A lexical resource for common sense knowledge. In N. Nicolov, G. Angelova, & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Recent advances in natural language processing V (pp. 269-280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, P. J. (1971). A logic of actions. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 6 (pp. 495-520). New York: Halsted.Google Scholar
Hayes, P. J. (1973). The frame problem and related problems in artificial intelligence. In A. Elithorn & D. Jones (Eds.), Artificial and human thinking (pp. 45-59). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hayes, P. J. (1977). In defence of logic. In R. Reddy (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 559-565). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Hayes, P. J. (1979). The logic of frames. In D. Metzing (Ed.), Frame conceptions and text understanding (pp. 46-61). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hayes, P. J. (1985). Naive physics I: Ontology for liquids. In J. R. Hobbs & R. C. Moore (Eds.), Formal theories of the commonsense world (pp. 71-107). Norwood, NJ; Ablex.Google Scholar
Hearn, R. A. (2001). Building grounded abstractions for artificial intelligence programming. Master's thesis. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hearst, M. A. (1992). Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In C. Boitet (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifteenth [fourteenth] international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 539-545). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Hearst, M. A. (1998). Automated discovery of WordNet relations. In C. Fellbaum (Ed.), WordNet: An electronic lexical database (pp. 131-151). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hendrix, G. G. (1973). Modeling simultaneous actions and continuous processes. Artificial Intelligence , 4 , 145-180.Google ScholarCross Ref
Henkin, L. (1949). The completeness of the first-order functional calculus. Journal of Symbolic Logic , 14 (3), 159-166.Google ScholarCross Ref
Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking. Psychological Review , 69 (4), 366-378.Google ScholarCross Ref
Herrmann, C. S., & Thielscher, M. (1996). Reasoning about continuous processes. In Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and eighth annual conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 639-644). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Hewitt, C. (1972). Description and theoretical analysis (using schemata) of planner: A language for proving theorems and manipulating models in a robot (Tech. Rep. No. AITR-258). Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Hewitt, C. (1987). Metacritique of McDermott and the logicist approach. Computational Intelligence , 3 , 185-189.Google ScholarCross Ref
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief: An introduction to the logic of the two notions . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. (1984). Sublanguage and knowledge. Technical Note 329. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. (1985). Ontological promiscuity. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 61-69). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R., & Moore, R. C. (Eds.). (1985). Formal theories of the commonsense world . Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M. E., Appelt, D. E., & Martin, P. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence , 63 , 69-142. Google ScholarDigital Library
Hodges, W. (1993). Model theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodges, W. (2001). Elementary predicate logic. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1-129). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. (1986). Monotonicity phenomena in natural language. Linguistic Analysis , 16 (1-2), 25-40.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, S., & Schneeberger, J. (1990). A new deductive approach to planning. New Generation Computing , 8 (3), 225-244. Google ScholarDigital Library
Hölldobler, S., & Thielscher, M. (1995). Computing change and specificity with equational logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence , 14 (1), 99-133.Google ScholarCross Ref
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science , 13 (3), 295-355.Google Scholar
Hoos, H. H., & Stutzle, T. (2005). Stochastic local search: Foundations and applications . San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Horty, J. F., Thomason, R. H., & Touretzky, D. S. (1990). A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks. Artificial Intelligence , 42 (2-3), 311-348. Google ScholarDigital Library
IMDb. (2014). Internet movie database. http://www.imdb.com.Google Scholar
Israel, D. J. (1980). What's wrong with non-monotonic logic? In R. M. Balzer (Ed.), Proceedings of the first national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 99-101). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Israel, D. J. (1985). A short companion to the naive physics manifesto. In J. R. Hobbs & R. C. Moore (Eds.), Formal theories of the commonsense world (pp. 427-447). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Iwánska, L. M., & Shapiro, S. C. (Eds.). (2000). Natural language processing and knowledge representation . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Jackson, D. (2000). Automating first-order relational logic. In Proceedings of the eighth international symposium on the foundations of software engineering (pp. 130-139). New York: ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
Janhunen, T., & Niemelä, I. (2011). Compact translations of non-disjunctive answer set programs to propositional clauses. In M. Balduccini & T. C. Son (Eds.), Logic programming, knowledge representation, and nonmonotonic reasoning (Vol. 6565, pp. 111-130). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). Human and machine thinking . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Jordan, P. W. (2004). Using student explanations as models for adapting tutorial dialogue. In V. Barr & Z. Markov (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventeenth international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference (pp. 905-910). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Kakas, A. C. (Ed.). (2013). Eleventh international symposium on logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning. Ayia Napa, Cyprus.Google Scholar
Kakas, A.C., Michael, L., Miller, R., (2005). Modular-E: an elaboration tolerant approach to the ramification and qualification problems. In: McIlraith, S., Peppas, P., Thielscher, M. (Eds.), Seventh International Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning . Corfu, Greece. Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
Kakas, A. C., Michael, L., & Miller, R. (2011). Modular-E and the role of elaboration tolerance in solving the qualification problem. Artificial Intelligence , 175 (1), 49-78. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kakas, A. C., & Miller, R. (1997a). Reasoning about actions, narratives and ramifications. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science , 2 (012), 1-29.Google Scholar
Kakas, A. C., & Miller, R. (1997b). A simple declarative language for describing narratives with actions. Journal of Logic Programming , 31 (1-3), 157-200.Google ScholarCross Ref
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory . Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Karlsson, L., & Gustafsson, J. (1997). Reasoning about actions in a multi-agent environment. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science , 2 (014), 1-22.Google Scholar
Karlsson, L., Gustafsson, J., & Doherty, P. (1998). Delayed effects of actions. In H. Prade (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirteenth European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 542-546). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kartha, G. N. (1994). Two counterexamples related to Baker's approach to the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence , 69 (1-2), 379-391. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kartha, G. N., & Lifschitz, V. (1994). Actions with indirect effects (preliminary report). In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, & P. Torasso (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 341-350). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Kartha, G. N., & Lifschitz, V. (1995). A simple formalization of actions using circumscription. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1970-1977). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Kautz, H. A. (1986). The logic of persistence. In Proceedings of the fifth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 401-405). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Kautz, H. A., & Selman, B. (1992). Planning as satisfiability. In B. Neumann (Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 359-363). Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Google Scholar
Kautz, H. A., & Selman, B. (1996). Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and eighth annual conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 1194-1201). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Kautz, H. A., & Selman, B. (2003). Ten challenges redux: Recent progress in propositional reasoning and search. In F. Rossi (Ed.), Principles and practice of constraint programming (Vol. 2833, pp. 1-18). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kim, T.-W. (2009). Format-output program. http://reasoning.eas.asu.edu/ecasp/.Google Scholar
Kim, T.-W., Lee, J., & Palla, R. (2009). Circumscriptive event calculus as answer set programming. In C. Boutilier (Ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-first international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 823-829). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1952). Introduction to metamathematics . New York: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1967). Mathematical logic . New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kneale, W., & Kneale, M. (1962). The development of logic . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koenderink, J. J., & van Doorn, A. J. (1979). The internal representation of solid shape with respect to vision. Biological Cybernetics , 32 , 211-216. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kolaitis, P. G., & Papadimitriou, C. H. (1990). Some computational aspects of circumscription. Journal of the ACM , 37 (1), 1-14. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kolata, G. (1982). How can computers get common sense? Science , 217 (4566), 1237-1238.Google ScholarCross Ref
Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning . San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. A. (1974). Logic for problem solving. Memo No. 75. Edinburgh, Scotland: Department of Computational Logic, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. A. (1979). Logic for problem solving . New York: North-Holland. Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. A. (1986). Database updates in the event calculus (Tech. Rep. No. DOC 86/12). London: Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R.A. (1992). Database updates in the event calculus. Journal of Logic Programming , 12 , 121-146. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kowalski, R. A., & Sadri, F. (1994). The situation calculus and event calculus compared. In M. Bruynooghe (Ed.), Logic programming: The 1994 international symposium (pp. 539-553). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. A., & Sadri, F. (1997). Reconciling the event calculus with the situation calculus. Journal of Logic Programming , 31 (1-3), 39-58.Google ScholarCross Ref
Kowalski, R. A., & Sergot, M. J. (1986). A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing , 4 (1), 67-95. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kripke, S.A. (1963). Semantical analysis of modal logic I: Normal modal propositional calculi. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik , 9 (5-6), 67-96.Google ScholarCross Ref
Krishnamurthy, J., & Lieberman, H. (2010). CrossBridge: Finding analogies using dimensionality reduction. In C. Havasi, D. B. Lenat, & B. D. Van Durme (Eds.), Commonsense knowledge: Papers from the AAAI fall symposium (pp. 58-63). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (2014). A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. Computational Linguistics , 40 (1), 121-170. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kuipers, B. (1986). Qualitative simulation. Artificial Intelligence , 29 (3), 289-338. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kuipers, B. (1994). Qualitative reasoning: Modeling and simulation with incomplete knowledge . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Kuipers, B. (2000). The spatial semantic hierarchy. Artificial Intelligence , 119 , 191-233. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines . New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Kushmerick, N., Hanks, S., & Weld, D. S. (1995). An algorithm for probabilistic planning. Artificial Intelligence , 76 , 239-286. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kvarnström, J. (2001). VITAL: Visualization and implementation of temporal action logic. Linköping, Sweden: Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University.Google Scholar
Kvarnström, J. (2005). TALplanner and other extensions to temporal action logic. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Kvarnström, J., & Doherty, P. (2000a). Tackling the qualification problem using fluent dependency constraints. Computational Intelligence , 16 (2), 169-209.Google ScholarCross Ref
Kvarnström, J., & Doherty, P. (2000b). TALplanner: A temporal logic based forward chaining planner. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence , 30 (1-4), 119-169. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lakoff, G. (1970). Linguistics and natural logic. Synthese , 22 , 151-271.Google ScholarCross Ref
Lally, A., Prager, J. M., McCord, M. C., Boguraev, B. K., Patwardhan, S., Fan, J., Fodor, P. & Chu-Carroll, J. (2012). Question analysis: How Watson reads a clue. IBM Journal of Research and Development , 56 (3-4), 2:1-2:14. Google Scholar
Lally, A., Bagchi, S., Barborak, M. A., Buchanan, D. W., Chu-Carroll, J., Ferrucci, D., Glass, M. R., Kalyanpur, A., Mueller, E. T., Murdock, J. W., Patwardhan, S., Prager, J.M., & Welty, C. A. (2014). WatsonPaths: Scenario-based question answering and inference over unstructured information. Research Report RC25489 (WAT1409-048), IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K. (1986). How much do people remember? Some estimates of the quantity of learned information in long-term memory. Cognitive Science , 10 (4), 477-493.Google ScholarCross Ref
Leake, D. B. (1995). Combining rules and cases to learn case adaptation. In Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 84-89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Leake, D. B. (1996). CBR in context: The present and future. In D. B. Leake (Ed.), Case-based reasoning: Experiences, lessons, & future directions (pp. 3-30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., & Palla, R. (2008). A reductive semantics for counting and choice in answer set programming. In Proceedings of the twenty-third AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 472-479). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., & Yang, F. (2013). Action language BC: Preliminary report. In F. Rossi (Ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-third international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 983-989). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Lee, J., & Palla, R. (2009). System F2LP--Computing answer sets of first-order formulas. In E. Erdem, F. Lin, & T. Schaub (Eds.), Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, tenth international conference (Vol. 5753, pp. 515-521). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Lee, J., & Palla, R. (2012). Reformulating the situation calculus and the event calculus in the general theory of stable models and in answer set programming. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 43 , 571-620. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lehnert, W.G. (1978). The process of question answering: A computer simulation of cognition . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Lemur Project. (2014). Indri search engine. http://www.lemurproject.org/indri.php.Google Scholar
Lenat, D. B. (1984). Why AM and EURISKO appear to work. Artificial Intelligence , 23 (3), 269-294. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lenat, D. B. (1995). Cyc: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM , 38 (11), 33-48. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lenat, D. B., Borning, A., McDonald, D., Taylor, C., & Weyer, S. (1983). Knoesphere: Building expert systems with encyclopedic knowledge. In A. Bundy (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 167-169). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Lenat, D. B., & Guha, R. V. (1990). Building large knowledge-based systems: Representation and inference in the Cyc project . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
Lenat, D. B., & Guha, R. V. (1991a). The evolution of CycL, the Cyc representation language. ACM SIGART Bulletin , 2 (3), 84-87. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lenat, D. B., & Guha, R. V. (1991b). Ideas for applying Cyc (Tech. Rep. No. ACT-CYC-407-91). Austin, TX: Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation.Google Scholar
Lenat, D. B., Guha, R.V., Pittman, K., Pratt, D., & Shepherd, M. (1990). Cyc: Toward programs with common sense. Communications of the ACM , 33 (8), 30-49. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lenat, D. B., Prakash, M., & Shepherd, M. (1985). CYC: Using common sense knowledge to overcome brittleness and knowledge acquisition bottlenecks. AI Magazine , 6 (4), 65-85. Google ScholarDigital Library
Levesque, H. J. (1981). A formal treatment of incomplete knowledge bases. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Levin, L. A. (1973). Universal search problems. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii [Problems of Information Transmission] , 9 (3), 265-266 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Lévy, F., & Quantz, J. J. (1998). Representing beliefs in a situated event calculus. In H. Prade (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirteenth European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 547-551). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1951). Intention, will and need. In D. Rapaport (Ed.), Organization and pathology of thought (pp. 95-153). New York: Columbia University Press (Original work published 1926)Google Scholar
Lieberman, H., Liu, H., Singh, P., & Barry, B.A. (2004). Beating common sense into interactive applications. AI Magazine , 25 (4), 63-76.Google ScholarDigital Library
Lieberman, H., Smith, D.A., Teeters, A., (2007). Common consensus: a web-based game for collecting commonsense goals. In: Havasi, C., Lieberman, H. (Eds.), Workshop on Common Sense and Intelligent User Interfaces . Honolulu, Hawaii. Association for Computing Machinery, New York.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (1985). Computing circumscription. In Proceedings of the ninth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 121-127). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (1987a). Formal theories of action. In F. M. Brown (Ed.), The frame problem in artificial intelligence: Proceedings of the 1987 workshop (pp. 35-57). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (1987b). On the semantics of STRIPS. In M. P. Georgeff & A. L. Lansky (Eds.), Reasoning about actions and plans: Proceedings of the 1986 workshop (pp. 1-9). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (1987c). Pointwise circumscription. In M. L. Ginsberg (Ed.), Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning (pp. 179-193). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (1989). Benchmark problems for formal nonmonotonic reasoning: Version 2.00. In M. Reinfrank, J. de Kleer, M. L. Ginsberg, & E. Sandewall (Eds.), Nonmonotonic reasoning, 2nd international workshop (Vol. 346, pp. 202-219). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (Ed.). (1990a). Formalizing common sense: Papers by John McCarthy . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (1990b). Frames in the space of situations. Artificial Intelligence , 46 (3), 365-376. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lifschitz, V. (1994). Circumscription. In D.M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (Vol. 3: Nonmonotonic reasoning and uncertain reasoning, pp. 298-352). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (1997a). Responses to Costello and Doherty. Electronic Newsletter on Reasoning AU7 About Actions and Change, 1 (4), 146-147.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (1997b). Responses to Sandewall, Doherty, Costello, and Hayes. Electronic Newsletter on Reasoning About Actions and Change, 1 (4), 153-155.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (1999). Success of default logic. In H. J. Levesque & F. Pirri (Eds.), Logical foundations for cognitive agents: Contributions in honor of Ray Reiter (pp. 208-212). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. (2003). Choosing a place for dinner. Message posted to Texas Action Group electronic mailing list, archived at http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/tag/discussions.html.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V., Tang, L. R., & Turner, H. (1999). Nested expressions in logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence , 25 (3-4), 369-389. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lin, D., & Pantel, P. (2001). Discovery of inference rules for question-answering. Natural Language Engineering , 7 (4), 343-360. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lin, F. (1995). Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1985-1993). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Lin, F. (1996). Embracing causality in specifying the indeterminate effects of actions. In Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and eighth annual conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 670-676). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Lin, F., & Reiter, R. (1994). State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation , 4 (5), 655-678.Google Scholar
Lin, F., & Shoham, Y. (1992). Concurrent actions in the situation calculus. In W. R. Swartout (Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 590-595). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Lin, F., & Shoham, Y. (1995). Provably correct theories of action. Journal of the ACM , 42 (2), 293-320. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lin, T. (2002). Analogical inference over a common sense database. In Proceedings of the eighteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and fourteenth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 955-956). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Liu, H. (2003). Unpacking meaning from words: A context-centered approach to computational lexicon design. In P. Blackburn, C. Ghidini, R. M. Turner, & F. Giunchiglia (Eds.), Modeling and using context (Vol. 2680, pp. 218-232). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Liu, H., Lieberman, H., (2002). Robust photo retrieval using world semantics. In: de Loupy, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the LREC 2002 Workshop on Creating and Using Semantics for Information Retrieval and Filtering. Las Palmas , Canary Islands, Spain. European Language Resources Assocation, Paris, pp. 13-18.Google Scholar
Liu, H., & Singh, P. (2004a). Commonsense reasoning in and over natural language. In M. G. Negoita, R. J. Howlett, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Knowledge-based intelligent information and engineering systems (Vol. 3215, pp. 293-306). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Liu, H., & Singh, P. (2004b). ConceptNet--A practical commonsense reasoning tool-kit. BT Technology Journal , 22 (4), 211-226. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ma, J., & Knight, B. (2001). Reified temporal logics: An overview. Artificial Intelligence Review , 15 (3), 189-217. Google ScholarCross Ref
Ma, J., Miller, R., Morgenstern, L., & Patkos, T. (2013a). An epistemic event calculus for ASP-based reasoning about knowledge of the past, present and future. In Nineteenth international conference on logic for programming, artificial intelligence and reasoning. Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
Ma, J., Miller, R., Morgenstern, L., & Patkos, T. (2013b). Resources for the epistemic functional event calculus (EFEC). http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/efec/.Google Scholar
MacCartney, B., & Manning, C. D. (2008). Modeling semantic containment and exclusion in natural language inference. In D. Scott & H. Uszkoreit (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 521-528). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. (1999). The complexity of natural language (dissertation proposal). Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL.Google Scholar
Mani, I. (2013). Computational modeling of narrative . San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
Manna, Z., & Waldinger, R. (1985). The logical basis for computer programming (Vol. 1: Deductive reasoning). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Manzano, M. (1996). Extensions of first order logic . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Marcus, M. P., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., & Santorini, B. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19 (2), 313-330. Google ScholarDigital Library
Marsden, J. E. (1974). Elementary classical analysis . San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Mates, B. (1972). Elementary logic (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mateus, P., Pacheco, A., & Pinto, J. A. (2002). Observations and the probabilistic situation calculus. In D. Fensel, F. Giunchiglia, D. McGuinness, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 327-338). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Max Planck Institute for Computer Science. (2014). YAGO. http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/yago-naga/yago/.Google Scholar
Maybury, M. T. (Ed.). (2004). New directions in question answering . Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
McAllester, D. A., & Givan, R. (1989). Natural language syntax and first order inference. A.I. Memo 1176. Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
McAllester, D. A., & Givan, R. (1992). Natural language syntax and first-order inference. Artificial Intelligence , 56 (1), 1-20. Google ScholarDigital Library
McCain, N. C. (1997). Causality in commonsense reasoning about actions (Tech. Rep. No. CS-TR-97-25). Austin, TX: Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas. Google Scholar
McCain, N. C., & Turner, H. (1995). A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1978-1984). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
McCain, N. C., & Turner, H. (1997). Causal theories of action and change. In Proceedings of the fourteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and ninth innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference (pp. 460-465). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1959). Programs with common sense. In Mechanisation of thought processes: Proceedings of a symposium held at the national physical laboratory on 24-27 November 1958 (Vol. 1, pp. 75-91). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1963). Situations, actions and causal laws. Memo 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project, Stanford University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1968). Programs with common sense. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing (pp. 403-418). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1977). Epistemological problems of artificial intelligence. In R. Reddy (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1038-1044). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann. Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1979). First order theories of individual concepts and propositions. In J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, & L. I. Mikulich (Eds.), Machine intelligence 9 (pp. 129-148). Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription--A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence , 13 (1-2), 27-39.Google ScholarDigital Library
McCarthy, J. (1983). President's quarterly message: AI needs more emphasis on basic research. AI Magazine , 4 (4), 5.Google ScholarDigital Library
McCarthy, J. (1984a). Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. In Proceedings of the non-monotonic reasoning workshop (pp. 295-324). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1984b). Some expert systems need common sense. In H. R. Pagels (Ed.), Computer culture: The scientific, intellectual, and social impact of the computer (pp. 129-137). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1986). Applications of circumscription to formalizing common-sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence , 28 , 89-116. Google ScholarDigital Library
McCarthy, J. (1987). Generality in artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM , 30 (12), 1030-1035. Google ScholarDigital Library
McCarthy, J. (1988). Mathematical logic in artificial intelligence. Dædalus , 117 (1), 297-311.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1990). An example for natural language understanding and the AI problems it raises. In V. Lifschitz (Ed.), Formalizing common sense: Papers by John McCarthy (pp. 70-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1993). Notes on formalizing context. In R. Bajcsy (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 555-562). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1997). Modality, si! Modal logic, no! Studia Logica , 59 (1), 29-32.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., (1998a). Elaboration tolerance. In Miller, R., Shanahan, M. (Eds.), Fourth Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning . London. Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, pp. 198-216.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1998b). Making robots conscious of their mental states. In K. Furukawa, D. Michie, & S. Muggleton (Eds.), Machine intelligence 15 (pp. 3-17). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1999). Modality for robots--Responses to Halpern and Wansing. Electronic News Journal on Reasoning About Actions and Change , 3 (5), 1-2.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2000). Modality for robots II--Response to Halpern. Electronic Newsletter on Reasoning About Actions and Change , 4 (3), 1-3.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 4 (pp. 463-502). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., & Lifschitz, V. (1987). Commentary on McDermott. Computational Intelligence , 3 , 196-197.Google ScholarCross Ref
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M., Sloman, A., Gong, L., Lau, T., Morgenstern, L., Mueller, E. T., Riecken, D., Singh, M., & Singh, P. (2002). An architecture of diversity for commonsense reasoning. IBM Systems Journal , 41 (3), 530-539. Google ScholarDigital Library
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
McCord, M. C. (2006a). A formal system for slot grammar (Tech. Rep. No. RC23976). Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM Research Division.Google Scholar
McCord, M. C. (2006b). The slot grammar lexical formalism (Tech. Rep. No. RC23977). Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM Research Division.Google Scholar
McCord, M. C. (2010). Using slot grammar (Tech. Rep. No. RC23978 revised). Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM Research Division.Google Scholar
McCord, M. C., Murdock, J. W., & Boguraev, B. K. (2012). Deep parsing in Watson. IBM Journal of Research and Development , 56 (3-4), 3:1-3:15. Google Scholar
McCorduck, P. (2004). Machines who think: A personal inquiry into the history and prospects of artificial intelligence . Natick, MA: A K Peters (25th Anniversary Update). Google Scholar
McDermott, D. V. (1982). A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans. Cognitive Science , 6 , 101-155.Google ScholarCross Ref
McDermott, D. V. (1987). A critique of pure reason. Computational Intelligence , 3 , 151-160.Google ScholarCross Ref
McDermott, D. V., & Doyle, J. (1980). Non-monotonic logic I. Artificial Intelligence , 13 (1-2), 41-72.Google ScholarDigital Library
McMillan, K. L., & Amla, N. (2003). Automatic abstraction without counterexamples. In H. Garavel & J. Hatcliff (Eds.), Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems: TACAS 2003 (Vol. 2619, pp. 2-17). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Mendelson, E. (1997). Introduction to mathematical logic (4th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Miller, R. (1996). A case study in reasoning about actions and continuous change. In W. Wahlster (Ed.), Proceedings of the twelfth European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 624-628). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Miller, R., Morgenstern, L., & Patkos, T. (2013). Reasoning about knowledge and action in an epistemic event calculus. In A. C. Kakas (Ed.), Eleventh international symposium on logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning. Ayia Napa, Cyprus.Google Scholar
Miller, R., & Shanahan, M. (1994). Narratives in the situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation , 4 (5), 513-530.Google ScholarCross Ref
Miller, R., & Shanahan, M. (1996). Reasoning about discontinuities in the event calculus. In L. C. Aiello, J. Doyle, & S. C. Shapiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 63-74). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Miller, R., & Shanahan, M. (1999). The event calculus in classical logic-Alternative axiomatisations. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science , 4 (016), 1-27.Google Scholar
Miller, R., & Shanahan, M. (2002). Some alternative formulations of the event calculus. In A. C. Kakas & F. Sadri (Eds.), Computational logic: Logic programming and beyond: Essays in honour of Robert A. Kowalski, part II (Vol. 2408, pp. 452-490). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Minker, J. (1993). An overview of nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming , 17 (2-4), 95-126.Google ScholarCross Ref
Minsky, M. (1961). Descriptive languages and problem solving. In Proceedings of the western joint computer conference (pp. 215-218). New York: National Joint Computer Committee. Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1968). Introduction. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing (pp. 1-32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1974). A framework for representing knowledge. A.I. Memo 306. Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1977). Plain talk about neurodevelopmental epistemology. In R. Reddy (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1083-1092). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1980). K-lines: A theory of memory. Cognitive Science , 4 , 117-133.Google ScholarCross Ref
Minsky, M. (1982). Learning meaning (draft). Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1986). The society of mind . New York: Simon & Schuster. Google Scholar
Minsky,M. (1991a). Logical versus analogical or symbolic versus connectionist or neat versus scruffy. AI Magazine , 12 (2), 34-51. Google ScholarDigital Library
Minsky, M. (1991b). Society of Mind: a response to four reviews. Artificial Intelligence , 48 , 371-396. Google ScholarDigital Library
Minsky, M. (1994). Negative expertise. International Journal of Expert Systems , 7 (1), 13-19. Google ScholarDigital Library
Minsky, M. (2006). The emotion machine: Commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of the human mind . New York: Simon & Schuster. Google Scholar
Minsky, M., & Papert, S. (1972). Artificial intelligence progress report. A.I. Memo 252. Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
Minsky, M., Singh, P., & Sloman, A. (2004). The St. Thomas common sense symposium: Designing architectures for human-level intelligence. AI Magazine , 25 (2), 113-124. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mitchell, D. G., Selman, B., & Levesque, H. J. (1992). Hard and easy distributions of sat problems. In W. R. Swartout (Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 459-465). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria , 36 (3), 373-398.Google Scholar
Moore, J. D. (1995). Participating in explanatory dialogues: Interpreting and responding to questions in context . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. (1980). Reasoning about knowledge and action. Technical Note 191. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. (1982). The role of logic in knowledge representation and commonsense reasoning. In D. L. Waltz (Ed.), Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 428-433). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. (1985a). A formal theory of knowledge and action. In J. R. Hobbs & R. C. Moore (Eds.), Formal theories of the commonsense world (pp. 319-358). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. (1985b). Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence , 25 (1), 75-94. Google ScholarDigital Library
Moore, R. C. (1995). Logic and representation . Stanford, CA: CSLI. Google Scholar
Moravec, H. (1999). Robot . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, B. (2013). A substrate for accountable layered systems. Doctoral dissertation. Program in Media Arts and Sciences, School of Architecture and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, L. (1988). Foundations of a logic of knowledge, action, and communication. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer Science, New York University, New York. Google Scholar
Morgenstern, L. (2001). Mid-sized axiomatizations of commonsense problems: A case study in egg cracking. Studia Logica , 67 , 333-384.Google ScholarCross Ref
Morgenstern, L., & Miller, R. (2014). Common sense problem page. http://commonsensereasoning.org/problem_page.html.Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T. (1990). Daydreaming in humans and machines: A computer model of the stream of thought . Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T. (1998). Natural language processing with ThoughtTreasure . New York: Signiform.Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T. (2000). A database and lexicon of scripts for ThoughtTreasure. Computing Research Repository , cs.AI/0003004 .Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T. (2002). Story understanding. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 4, pp. 238-246). London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T. (2003). Story understanding through multi-representation model construction. In G. Hirst & S. Nirenburg (Eds.), Text meaning: Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 2003 workshop (pp. 46-53). East Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T. (2004a). Event calculus reasoning through satisfiability. Journal of Logic and Computation , 14 (5), 703-730. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mueller, E. T. (2004b). A tool for satisfiability-based commonsense reasoning in the event calculus. In V. Barr & Z. Markov (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventeenth international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference (pp. 147-152). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T. (2004c). Understanding script-based stories using commonsense reasoning. Cognitive Systems Research , 5 (4), 307-340. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mueller, E. T. (2006). Event calculus and temporal action logics compared. Artificial Intelligence , 170 (11), 1017-1029. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mueller, E. T. (2007a). Discrete event calculus with branching time. In E. Amir, V. Lifschitz, & R. Miller (Eds.), Logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning: Papers from the AAAI spring symposium (pp. 126-131). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T. (2007b). Modelling space and time in narratives about restaurants. Literary and Linguistic Computing , 22 (1), 67-84.Google ScholarCross Ref
Mueller, E. T. (2009). Automating commonsense reasoning using the event calculus. Communications of the ACM , 52 (1), 113-117. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mueller, E. T., & Sutcliffe, G. (2005a). Discrete event calculus deduction using first-order automated theorem proving. In B. Konev & S. Schulz (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on the implementation of logics (pp. 43-56). Liverpool, UK: Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T., & Sutcliffe, G. (2005b). Reasoning in the event calculus using first-order automated theorem proving. In I. Russell & Z. Markov (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference (pp. 840-841). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Murdock, J. W. (2011). Structure mapping for Jeopardy! clues. In A. Ram & N. Wiratunga (Eds.), Case-based reasoning research and development (Vol. 6880, pp. 6-10). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Murdock, J. W., Fan, J., Lally, A., Shima, H., & Boguraev, B. K. (2012). Textual evidence gathering and analysis. IBM Journal of Research and Development , 56(3-4), 8:1-8:14. Google Scholar
Murdock, J. W., Kalyanpur, A., Welty, C., Fan, J., Ferrucci, D., Gondek, D. C., Zhang, L., & Kanayama, H. (2012). Typing candidate answers using type coercion. IBM Journal of Research and Development , 56 (3-4), 7:1-7:13. Google Scholar
Narayanan, S. S. (1997). Knowledge-based action representations for metaphor and aspect (KARMA). Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Google Scholar
Nelson, M. J., & Mateas, M. (2008). Recombinable game mechanics for automated design support. In C. Darken & M. Mateas (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment conference (pp. 84-89). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Nerode, A., & Shore, R. A. (1997). Logic for applications (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1961). GPS, a program that simulates human thought. In H. Billing (Ed.), Lernende automaten (pp. 109-124). Munich: Oldenbourgh.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem-solving . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1969). De methodis serierum et fluxionum. In D. T. Whiteside (Ed.), The mathematical papers of Isaac Newton (Vols. III: 1670-1673, pp. 32-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Original work published 1670)Google Scholar
Niemelä, I., Simons, P., & Soininen, T. (1999). Stable model semantics of weight constraint rules. In M. Gelfond, N. Leone, & G. Pfeifer (Eds.), Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, fifth international conference (Vol. 1730, pp. 317-331). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Nilsson, N. J. (1980). Principles of artificial intelligence . Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Nilsson, N. J. (1991). Logic and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence , 47 (1-3), 31-56. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nilsson, N. J. (1998). Artificial intelligence: A new synthesis . San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Norvig, P. (1989). Marker passing as a weak method for text inferencing. Cognitive Science , 13 (4), 569-620.Google ScholarCross Ref
Oberschelp, A. (1990). Order sorted predicate logic. In K. H. Blasius, U. Hedtstück, & C. R. Rollinger (Eds.), Sorts and types in artificial intelligence (Vol. 418, pp. 8-17). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
O'Rorke, P., & Ortony, A. (1994). Explaining emotions. Cognitive Science , 18 , 283-323.Google ScholarCross Ref
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. M. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palla, R. (2012). Bridging the gap between classical logic based formalisms and logic programs. Doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. http://repository.asu.edu/items/14557. Google Scholar
Palmer, M., Gildea, D., & Kingsbury, P. (2005). The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics , 31 (1), 71-105. Google ScholarDigital Library
Panton, K., Miraglia, P., Salay, N., Kahlert, R. C., Baxter, D., & Reagan, R. (2002). Knowledge formation and dialogue using the KRAKEN toolset. In Proceedings of the eighteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and fourteenth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 900-905). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Parmar, A. (2001). The representation of actions in KM and Cyc (Tech. Rep. No. FRG-1). Stanford, CA: Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Parmar, A. (2003). Formalizing elaboration tolerance. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Google Scholar
Patkos, T. (2010). A formal theory for reasoning about action, knowledge and time. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer Science, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.Google Scholar
Patkos, T., & Plexousakis, D. (2009). Reasoning with knowledge, action and time in dynamic and uncertain domains. In C. Boutilier (Ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-first international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 885-890). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (1984). Heuristics: Intelligent search strategies for computer problem solving . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (1988a). On logic and probability. Computational Intelligence , 4 , 99-103.Google ScholarCross Ref
Pearl, J. (1988b). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference (revised second printing ed.). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Pednault, E. P. D. (1987). Formulating multiagent, dynamic-world problems in the classical planning framework. In M. P. Georgeff & A. L. Lansky (Eds.), Reasoning about actions and plans: Proceedings of the 1986 workshop (pp. 47-82). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Pednault, E. P. D. (1989). ADL: Exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus. In R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque, & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 324-332). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Pinto, J. A. (1994). Temporal reasoning in the situation calculus. Doctoral dissertation. Graduate Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto. Google Scholar
Pinto, J. A. (1998a). Causality, indirect effects and triggers. In H. Geffner & V. Lifschitz (Eds.), Workshop on action and causality. Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
Pinto, J. A. (1998b). Occurrences and narratives as constraints in the branching structure of the situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation , 8 , 777-808.Google ScholarCross Ref
Pinto, J. A., & Reiter, R. (1993). Temporal reasoning in logic programming: A case for the situation calculus. In D. S. Warren (Ed.), Logic programming: Proceedings of the tenth international conference (pp. 203-221). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Pirri, F., & Reiter, R. (1999). Some contributions to the metatheory of the situation calculus. Journal of the ACM , 46 (3), 325-361. Google ScholarDigital Library
Plaisted, D. A., & Greenbaum, S. (1986). A structure-preserving clause form translation. Journal of Symbolic Computation , 2 , 293-304. Google ScholarDigital Library
Portinale, L. (1994). Petri net models for diagnostic knowledge representation and reasoning. Doctoral dissertation. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino, Turin, Italy.Google Scholar
Portner, P. H. (2005). What is meaning? Fundamentals of formal semantics . Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pratt, V. R. (1976). Semantical considerations on Floyd-Hoare logic. In Proceedings of the 17th symposium on the foundations of computer science (pp. 109-121). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2002). Paraconsistent logic. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed., Vol. 6, pp. 287-393). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Provetti, A. (1996). Hypothetical reasoning about actions: From situation calculus to event calculus. Computational Intelligence , 12 , 478-498.Google ScholarCross Ref
Punyakanok, V., Roth, D., & Yih, W.-T. (2008). The importance of syntactic parsing and inference in semantic role labeling. Computational Linguistics , 34 (2), 257-287. Google ScholarDigital Library
Purdy, W. C. (1991). A logic for natural language. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic , 32 (3), 409-425.Google ScholarCross Ref
Purtee, A., & Schubert, L. K. (2012). TTT: A tree transduction language for syntactic and semantic processing. In Proceedings of the workshop on applications of tree automata techniques in natural language processing (pp. 21-30). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (Ed.). (1987). The robot's dilemma: The frame problem in artificial intelligence . Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar
Quillian, M. R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing (pp. 227-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ram, A., & Moorman, K. (Eds.). (1999). Understanding language understanding: Computational models of reading . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Randell, D. A., Cui, Z., & Cohn, A. G. (1992). A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, & W. R. Swartout (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 165-176). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1992). An abstract architecture for rational agents. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, & W. R. Swartout (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 439-449). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Reichgelt, H. (1991). Knowledge representation: An AI perspective . Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar
Reisig, W. (1985). Petri nets: An introduction . Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Reiter, R. (1978). On reasoning by default. In Proceedings of the 1978 workshop on theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp. 210-218). New York: Association of Computing Machinery. Google Scholar
Reiter, R. (1980a). Equality and domain closure in first-order databases. Journal of the ACM , 27 (2), 235-249. Google ScholarDigital Library
Reiter, R. (1980b). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13 (1-2) 81-132.Google ScholarDigital Library
Reiter, R. (1982). Circumscription implies predicate completion (sometimes). In D. L. Waltz (Ed.), Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 418-420). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. (1991). The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In V. Lifschitz (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and mathematical theory of computation: Papers in honor of John McCarthy (pp. 359-380). San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Reiter, R. (1993). Proving properties of states in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence , 64 (2), 337-351. Google ScholarDigital Library
Reiter, R. (1996). Natural actions, concurrency and continuous time in the situation calculus. In L. C. Aiello, J. Doyle, & S. C. Shapiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 2-13). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. (2001). Knowledge in action: Logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Reiter, R., & Criscuolo, G. (1981). On interacting defaults. In Proceedings of the seventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 270-276). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Remolina, E., & Kuipers, B. (2004). Towards a general theory of topological maps. Artificial Intelligence , 152 (1), 47-104. Google ScholarDigital Library
Richardson, S. D., Dolan, W. B., & Vanderwende, L. (1998). MindNet: Acquiring and structuring semantic information from text. In Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and seventeenth international conference on computational linguistics: Proceedings of the conference (pp. 1098-1102). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Riecken, D. (1994). M: An architecture of integrated agents. Communications of the ACM , 37 (7), 107-116, 146. Google ScholarDigital Library
Rips, L. J. (1983). Cognitive processes in propositional reasoning. Psychological Review , 90 (1), 38-71.Google ScholarCross Ref
Rips, L. J. (1994). The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Roberts, R. B., & Goldstein, I. P. (1977). The FRL manual. A.I. Memo 409. Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
Robinson, J. A. (1965). A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. Journal of the ACM , 12 (1), 23-41. Google ScholarDigital Library
Robinson, J. A., & Voronkov, A. (2001a). Handbook of automated reasoning (Vol. 1). Amsterdam and Cambridge, MA: Elsevier and MIT Press. Google Scholar
Robinson, J. A., & Voronkov, A. (2001b). Handbook of automated reasoning (Vol. 2). Amsterdam and Cambridge, MA: Elsevier and MIT Press. Google Scholar
Rohde, D. L. T. (2005). TGrep2 user manual: Version 1.15. http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Tgrep2/tgrep2.pdf.Google Scholar
Rosenbloom, P. S., Laird, J. E., & Newell, A. (Eds.). (1993). The Soar papers: Research on integrated intelligence (Vol. 1 and 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & PDP Research Group (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1: Foundations). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2009). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Sacerdoti, E. D. (1974). Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spaces. Artificial Intelligence , 5 , 115-135.Google Scholar
Sacerdoti, E. D. (1977). A structure for plans and behavior . New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sammet, J. E. (1966). The use of English as a programming language. Communications of the ACM , 9 (3), 228-230. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sánchez Valencia, V. (1991). Categorial grammar and natural reasoning (Tech. Rep. No. LP-91-08). Amsterdam: Institute for Language, Logic and Information, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sanders, K. E. (1989). A logic for emotions: A basis for reasoning about commonsense psychological knowledge (Tech. Rep. No. CS-89-23). Providence, RI: Department of Computer Science, Brown University. Google Scholar
Sandewall, E. (1972). An approach to the frame problem, and its implementation. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 7 (pp. 195-204). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Sandewall, E. (1989a). Combining logic and differential equations for describing real-world systems. In R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque, & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 412-420). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Sandewall, E. (1989b). Filter [sic] preferential entailment for the logic of action in almost continuous worlds. In N. S. Sridharan (Ed.), Proceedings of the eleventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 894-899). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Sandewall, E. (1991). Features and fluents. An agenda and logic-based framework for the representation of knowledge about dynamical systems. Review version of chapters 1 and 3-7 (Tech. Rep. No. LiTH-IDA-R-91-29). Linköping, Sweden: Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University.Google Scholar
Sandewall, E. (1994). Features and fluents: The representation of knowledge about dynamical systems (Vol. I). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Sandewall, E. (1996). Assessments of ramification methods that use static domain constraints. In L. C. Aiello, J. Doyle, & S. C. Shapiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 99-110). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Sandewall, E. (1997). Response to Lifschitz. Electronic Newsletter on Reasoning About Actions and Change , 1 (4), 147-149.Google Scholar
SAT Competition. (2011). Result page for benchmark APPLICATIONS/c32sat/post-cbmc-zfcp-2.8-u2-noholes.cnf. http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/SAT11/results/bench.php?idev=45&idbench=70953.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., Kass, A., & Riesbeck, C. K. (Eds.). (1994). Inside case-based explanation . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Riesbeck, C. K. (Eds.). (1981). Inside computer understanding: Five programs plus miniatures . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Scherl, R. B., & Levesque, H. J. (2003). Knowledge, action, and the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence , 144 (1-2), 1-39. Google ScholarDigital Library
Schmidt, J. (1960). Peano-Bäume. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik , 6 (3-4), 225-239.Google ScholarCross Ref
Schubert, L. K. (1990). Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In H. E. Kyburg, Jr., R. P. Loui, & G. N. Carlson (Eds.), Knowledge representation and defeasible reasoning (pp. 23-67). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Schubert, L. K. (2002). Can we derive general world knowledge from texts? In M. P. Marcus (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international conference on human language technology research (pp. 94-97). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Schubert, L. K., Gordon, J. M., Stratos, K., & Rubinoff, A. (2011). Towards adequate knowledge and natural inference. In P. Langley (Ed.), Advances in cognitive systems: Papers from the AAAI fall symposium (pp. 288-296). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, L. K., & Hwang, C. H. (1989). An episodic knowledge representation for narrative texts. In R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque, & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 444-458). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Schubert, L. K., & Hwang, C. H. (2000). Episodic Logic meets Little Red Riding Hood: A comprehensive, natural representation for language understanding. In L. M. Iwanska & S. C. Shapiro (Eds.), Natural language processing and knowledge representation (pp. 111-174). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Schubert, L. K., & Tong, M. (2003). Extracting and evaluating general world knowledge from the Brown corpus. In G. Hirst & S. Nirenburg (Eds.), Text meaning: Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 2003 workshop (pp. 7-13). East Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
Schwartz, J. T. (1988). The new connectionism: Developing relationships between neuroscience and artificial intelligence. In S. R. Graubard (Ed.), The artificial intelligence debate (pp. 123-141). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Schwitter, R. (2011). Specifying events and their effects in controlled natural language. Procedia--Social and Behavioral Sciences , 27 , 12-21.Google ScholarCross Ref
Selman, B., Kautz, H. A., & Cohen, B. (1993). Local search strategies for satisfiability testing. In D. S. Johnson & M. A. Trick (Eds.), Cliques, coloring, and satisfiability: Second dimacs implementation challenge (Vol. 26). Boston, MA: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Selman, B., Kautz, H. A., & McAllester, D. A. (1997). Ten challenges in propositional reasoning and search. In Proceedings of the fifteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 50-54). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1989). Prediction is deduction but explanation is abduction. In N. S. Sridharan (Ed.), Proceedings of the eleventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1055-1060). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1990). Representing continuous change in the event calculus. In L. C. Aiello (Ed.), Proceedings of the ninth european conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 598-603). London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1995a). A circumscriptive calculus of events. Artificial Intelligence , 77 , 249-284. Google ScholarDigital Library
Shanahan, M. (1995b). Default reasoning about spatial occupancy. Artificial Intelligence , 74 , 147-163. Google ScholarDigital Library
Shanahan, M. (1996). Robotics and the common sense informatic situation. In W. Wahlster (Ed.), Proceedings of the twelfth European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 684-688). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1997a). Event calculus planning revisited. In S. Steel & R. Alami (Eds.), Recent advances in AI planning (Vol. 1348, pp. 390-402). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1997b). Solving the frame problem . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1998). A logical formalisation of Ernie Davis's egg cracking problem. In R. Miller & M. Shanahan (Eds.), Fourth symposium on logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning. London: Queen Mary and Westfield College.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1998). Protocol of online discussion about the article A logical account of the common sense informatic situation for a mobile robot. Electronic News Journal on Reasoning about Actions and Change , 2 (10), 328-329.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1999a). The event calculus explained. In M. J. Wooldridge & M. M. Veloso (Eds.), Artificial intelligence today: Recent trends and developments (Vol. 1600, pp. 409-430). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1999b). The ramification problem in the event calculus. In Proceedings of the sixteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 140-146). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (1999c). What sort of computation mediates best between perception and action? In H. J. Levesque & F. Pirri (Eds.), Logical foundations for cognitive agents: Contributions in honor of Ray Reiter (pp. 352-369). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (2000). An abductive event calculus planner. Journal of Logic Programming , 44 (1-3), 207-240.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (2002). The frame problem. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 2, pp. 144-150). London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. (2004). An attempt to formalise a non-trivial benchmark problem in common sense reasoning. Artificial Intelligence , 153 , 141-165. Google ScholarDigital Library
Shanahan, M. (2005). Perception as abduction: Turning sensor data into meaningful representation. Cognitive Science , 29 , 103-134.Google ScholarCross Ref
Shanahan, M., & Randell, D. A. (2004). A logic-based formulation of active visual perception. In D. Dubois, C. A. Welty, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 64-72). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M., & Witkowski, M. (2004). Event calculus planning through satisfiability. Journal of Logic and Computation , 14 (5), 731-745. Google ScholarDigital Library
Shapiro, S. C. (1979). The SNePS semantic network processing system. In N. V. Findler (Ed.), Associative networks: Representation and use of knowledge by computers (pp. 179-203). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shoham, Y. (1987). Temporal logics in AI: Semantical and ontological considerations. Artificial Intelligence , 33 , 89-104. Google ScholarDigital Library
Shoham, Y. (1988). Reasoning about change: Time and causation from the standpoint of artificial intelligence . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Shoham, Y. (1993). Agent-oriented programming. Artificial Intelligence , 60 , 51-92. Google ScholarDigital Library
Siklóssy, L., & Dreussi, J. (1973). An efficient robot planner which generates its own procedures. In Advance papers of the third international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 423-430). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Sil, A., & Yates, A. (2011). Extracting STRIPS representations of actions and events. In G. Angelova, K. Bontcheva, R. Mitkov, & N. Nicolov (Eds.), Recent advances in natural language processing (pp. 1-8). Shoumen, Bulgaria: Incoma.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1967). Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review , 74 (1), 29-39.Google ScholarCross Ref
Singh, P. (1998). Failure-directed reformulation. Master's thesis. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Singh, P. (2002). The public acquisition of commonsense knowledge. In J. Karlgren (Ed.), Acquiring (and using) linguistic (and world) knowledge for information access: Papers from 2002 AAAI spring symposium (pp. 47-52). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Singh, P. (2004). Examining the Society of Mind. Computing and Informatics , 22 (6), 521-543.Google Scholar
Singh, P. (2005). EM-ONE: An architecture for reflective commonsense thinking. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
Singh, P., Barry, B. A., & Liu, H. (2004). Teaching machines about everyday life. BT Technology Journal , 22 (4), 227-240. Google ScholarDigital Library
Singh, P., Lin, T., Mueller, E. T., Lim, G., Perkins, T., & Zhu, W. L. (2002). Open Mind Common Sense: Knowledge acquisition from the general public. In R. Meersman & Z. Tari (Eds.), On the move to meaningful internet systems 2002: DOA/CoopIS/ODBASE 2002 (Vol. 2519, pp. 1223-1237). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
Singh, P., & Minsky, M. (2004). An architecture for cognitive diversity. In D. N. Davis (Ed.), Visions of mind: Architectures for cognition and affect (pp. 312-331). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
Singh, P., Minsky, M., & Eslick, I. (2004). Computing commonsense. BT Technology Journal , 22 (4), 201-210. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sirbu, M. A., & Tygar, J. D. (1995). NetBill: An Internet commerce system optimized for network delivered services. In 40th IEEE computer society international conference (pp. 20-25). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. Google Scholar
Sloman, A. (2001). Beyond shallow models of emotion. Cognitive Processing , 2 (1), 177-198.Google Scholar
Smedslund, J. (1997). The structure of psychological common sense . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, T. F., & Waterman, M. S. (1981). Identification of common molecular subsequences. Journal of Molecular Biology , 147 (1), 195-197.Google Scholar
Solow, D. (2002). How to read and do proofs: An introduction to mathematical thought processes (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Speer, R. (2007). Learning common sense knowledge from user interaction and principal component analysis. Master's thesis. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Speer, R., & Havasi, C. (2012). Representing general relational knowledge in ConceptNet 5. In N. Calzolari et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (pp. 3679-3686). Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Speer, R., Havasi, C., & Lieberman, H. (2008). AnalogySpace: Reducing the dimensionality of common sense knowledge. In Proceedings of the twenty-third AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2008) (pp. 548-553). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Speer, R., Havasi, C., & Surana, H. (2010). Using verbosity: Common sense data from games with a purpose. In H. W. Guesgen & R. C. Murray (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference (pp. 104-109). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S., Vishton, P. M., & von Hofsten, C. (1995). Object perception, object-directed action, and physical knowledge in infancy. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 165-179). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stein, L. A. (1992). Resolving ambiguity in nonmonotonic inheritance hierarchies. Artificial Intelligence , 55 (2-3), 259-310. Google ScholarDigital Library
Stein, L. A., & Morgenstern, L. (1994). Motivated action theory: a formal theory of causal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence , 71 (1), 1-42. Google ScholarDigital Library
Stork, D. G. (1999). The Open Mind Initiative. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications , 14 (3), 19-20.Google Scholar
Stork, D. G., & Lam, C. P. (2000). Open Mind Animals: Insuring the quality of data openly contributed over the world wide web. In N. Japkowicz (Ed.), Learning from imbalanced data sets: Papers from the AAAI workshop (pp. 4-9). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Strzalkowski, T., & Harabagiu, S. (Eds.). (2008). Advances in open domain question answering . Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
Sun, R. (1994). Integrating rules and connectionism for robust commonsense reasoning . New York: John Wiley. Google Scholar
Sun, R. (1995). A new approach toward modeling causality in commonsense reasoning. International Journal of Intelligent Systems , 10 , 581-616.Google ScholarCross Ref
Sun, R. (1996). Commonsense reasoning with rules, cases, and connectionist models: A paradigmatic comparison. Fuzzy Sets and Systems , 82 (2), 187-200. Google ScholarDigital Library
Suppes, P. (1979). Logical inference in English: A preliminary analysis. Studia Logica , 38 (4), 375-391.Google ScholarCross Ref
Suppes, P., & Warren, H. (1975). On the generation and classification of defence mechanisms. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis , 56 , 405-414.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, G. (2013). The sixth IJCAR automated theorem proving system competition-- CASC-J6. AI Communications , 26 (2), 211-223. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sutcliffe, G., & Suttner, C. B. (2014). The TPTP problem library for automated theorem proving. Coral Gables, FL: Department of Computer Science, University of Miami. http://www.cs.miami.edu/~tptp/. Google Scholar
Swartout, W. R. (1977). A digitalis therapy advisor with explanations. In R. Reddy (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 819-825). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Sycara, K. (1988). Patching up old plans. In Proceedings of the tenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 405-411). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Synge, J. L. (1960). Classical dynamics. In S. Flugge (Ed.), Encyclopedia of physics (Vol. III/1: Principles of classical mechanics and field theory, pp. 1-225). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Syrjänen, T. (2000). Lparse 1.0 user's manual. http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Software/smodels/lparse.ps.gz.Google Scholar
Szolovits, P., Hawkinson, L. B., & Martin, W. A. (1977). An overview of OWL, a language for knowledge representation (Tech. Rep. No. MIT-LCS-TM-086). Cambridge, MA: Laboratory for Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1996). Mind: Introduction to cognitive science . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thanassas, D. (1992). The phenomenon of commonsense reasoning: Nonmonotonicity, action and information . Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood. Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. (1995). Computing ramifications by postprocessing. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1994-2000). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. (1996). Ramification and causality (Tech. Rep. No. TR-96-003). Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. (1997). Ramification and causality. Artificial Intelligence , 89 , 317-364. Google ScholarDigital Library
Thielscher, M. (1999a). Fluent calculus planning with continuous change. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science , 4 (011), 1-15.Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. (1999b). From situation calculus to fluent calculus: State update axioms as a solution to the inferential frame problem. Artificial Intelligence , 111 , 277-299. Google ScholarDigital Library
Thielscher, M. (1999c). On-line tutorial on the fluent calculus. Dresden, Germany: Technischen Universität Dresden.Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. (2000). Modeling actions with ramifications in nondeterministic, concurrent, and continuous domains--And a case study. In Proceedings of the seventeenth national conference on artificial intelligence and twelfth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 497-502). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. (2001). The qualification problem: A solution to the problem of anomalous models. Artificial Intelligence , 131 , 1-37. Google ScholarDigital Library
Thielscher, M. (2005a). Reasoning robots: The art and science of programming robotic agents . Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. (2005b). FLUX: A logic programming method for reasoning agents. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , 5 (4-5), 533-565. Google ScholarDigital Library
Thielscher, M. (2008). Action programming languages . San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool. Google Scholar
Thomason, R. H. (Ed.). (1974). Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tran, N., & Baral, C. (2004a). Encoding probabilistic causal model in probabilistic action language. In D. L. McGuinness & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Proceedings of the nineteenth national conference on artificial intelligence and sixteenth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 305-310). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
Tran, N., & Baral, C. (2004b). Reasoning about triggered actions in AnsProlog and its application to molecular interactions in cells. In D. Dubois, C. A. Welty, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 554-563). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Trustees of Princeton University. (2006). WordNet 3.0 reference manual. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wordnet/documentation/.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind , 59 (236), 433-460.Google ScholarDigital Library
Turing, A.M. (2004). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. In M. Davis (Ed.), The undecidable: Basic papers on undecidable propositions, unsolvable problems and computable functions (corrected ed., pp. 115-154). Mineola, NY: Dover (Original work published 1936)Google Scholar
United States National Library of Medicine. (2014). Unified medical language system. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/.Google Scholar
Van Belleghem, K., Denecker, M., & De Schreye, D. (1994). Representing continuous change in the abductive event calculus. In P. V. Hentenryck (Ed.), Logic programming: The eleventh international conference (pp. 225-239). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Van Belleghem, K., Denecker, M., & De Schreye, D. (1997). On the relation between situation calculus and event calculus. Journal of Logic Programming , 31 (1-3), 3-37.Google ScholarCross Ref
Van Durme, B. D. (2009). Extracting implicit knowledge from text. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., & Porter, B. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of knowledge representation . Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2005). The proper treatment of events . Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van Benthem, J. (1987). Meaning: Interpretation and inference. Synthese , 73 (3), 451-470.Google ScholarCross Ref
van Benthem, J., & Doets, K. (2001). Higher-order logic. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 189-243). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Velleman, D. J. (1994). How to prove it: A structured approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Veloso, M.M. (1989). Nonlinear problem solving using intelligent casual-commitment (Tech. Rep. No. CMU-CS-89-210). Pittsburgh, PA: Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
von Ahn, L., & Dabbish, L. (2008). Designing games with a purpose. Communications of the ACM , 51 (8), 58-67. Google ScholarDigital Library
von Ahn, L., Kedia, M., & Blum, M. (2006). Verbosity: A game for collecting common-sense facts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 75-78). New York, NY: ACM. Google Scholar
von Neumann, J. (1958). The computer and the brain . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
Waldinger, R. (1977). Achieving several goals simultaneously. In E. Elcock & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 8 (pp. 94-136). Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
Walther, C. (1983). A many-sorted calculus based on resolution and paramodulation. In A. Bundy (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 882-891). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Walther, C. (1987). A many-sorted calculus based on resolution and paramodulation . London: Pitman. Google Scholar
Wansing, H. (1998). Editorial. Journal of Logic, Language and Information , 7 (3), iii-vii. Google Scholar
Watkins, D. S. (2010). Fundamentals of matrix computations (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism . New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Weld, D. S., & de Kleer, J. (Eds.). (1990). Readings in qualitative reasoning about physical systems . San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1925). Principia mathematica (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wikimedia Foundation. (2014a). Wikipedia. http://www.wikipedia.org.Google Scholar
Wikimedia Foundation. (2014b). Wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org.Google Scholar
Wilensky, R. (1978). Understanding goal-based stories (Tech. Rep. No. YALE/DCS/tr140). New Haven, CT: Computer Science Department, Yale University.Google Scholar
Wilensky, R. (1983). Planning and understanding: A computational approach to human reasoning . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wilk, J. (2004). Dynamic workflow pulling the strings. Distinguished Project (MEng). London: Department of Computing, Imperial College London.Google Scholar
Williams, M.-A. (1997). Belief revision, implementing belief revision, and interconnections. In G. Antoniou (Ed.), Nonmonotonic reasoning (pp. 183-225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., & Thangarajah, J. (2002). Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In D. Fensel, F. Giunchiglia, D. McGuinness, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 470-481). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language . New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Winograd, T. (1975). Frame representations and the declarative/procedural controversy. In D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 185-210). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Winston, P. H. (1970). Learning structural descriptions from examples (Tech. Rep. No. AITR-231). Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
Winston, P. H. (1977). Artificial intelligence . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Witbrock, M., Baxter, D., Curtis, J., Schneider, D., Kahlert, R. C., Miraglia, P., Wagner, P., Panton, K., Matthews, G., & Vizedom, A. (2003). An interactive dialogue system for knowledge acquisition in Cyc. In Proceedings and presentations of the workshop on mixed-initiative intelligent systems (pp. 138-145). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Computer Science Department.Google Scholar
Witbrock, M., Matuszek, C., Brusseau, A., Kahlert, R. C., Fraser, C. B., & Lenat, D. B. (2005). Knowledge begets knowledge: Steps towards assisted knowledge acquisition in Cyc. In T. Chklovski, P. Domingos, H. Lieberman, R. Mihalcea, & P. Singh (Eds.), Knowledge collection from volunteer contributors: Papers from the AAAI spring symposium (pp. 99-105). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, R. S. (2005). A tour through mathematical logic . Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science . Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media. Google Scholar
Woods, W. A. (1973). Progress in natural language understanding: An application to lunar geology. In AFIPS fall joint computer conference (pp. 441-450). Montvale, NJ: AFIPS Press. Google Scholar
Wooldridge, M. (2000). Reasoning about rational agents . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Workflow Management Coalition. (1999). Workflow management coalition terminology & glossary. Document Number WFMC-TC-1011. Document Status-Issue 3.0, Workflow Management Coalition, Winchester, UK.Google Scholar
Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2004). Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence , 42 (1-3), 227-253. Google ScholarCross Ref
Zernik, U. (Ed.). (1991). Lexical acquisition: Exploiting on-line resources to build a lexicon . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cited By

Contributors

Erik T Mueller
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
- Publication Years1983 - 2017
- Publication counts21
- Citation count365
- Available for Download6
- Downloads (cumulative)4,327
- Downloads (12 months)211
- Downloads (6 weeks)40
- Average Downloads per Article721
- Average Citation per Article17
View Full Profile

Recommendations

Using extended logic programs to formalize commonsense reasoning
Read More
Commonsense reasoning in Prolog
CSC '87: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on Computer Science

Commonsense reasoning with incomplete knowledge plays an important role in problem solving. Various kinds of non-monotonic logic are the formalizations of this kind of reasoning. In many cases the closed world assumption with negation as failure can ...
Read More
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-...
Read More

Comments

Browse Books

Sections

References

Cited By

Using extended logic programs to formalize commonsense reasoning

Commonsense reasoning in Prolog

Logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning: a survey

Save to Binder

Sections

References

Cited By

Save to Binder

Recommendations

Using extended logic programs to formalize commonsense reasoning

Commonsense reasoning in Prolog

Logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning: a survey