Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userTactical Diagrammatic Reasoning
115
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2017
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Although automated reasoning with diagrams has been possible for some years, tools for diagrammatic reasoning are generally much less sophisticated than their sentential cousins. The tasks of exploring levels of automation and abstraction in the construction of proofs and of providing explanations of solutions expressed in the proofs remain to be addressed. In this paper we take an interactive proof assistant for Euler diagrams, Speedith, and add tactics to its reasoning engine, providing a level of automation in the construction of proofs. By adding tactics to Speediths repertoire of inferences, we ease the interaction between the user and the system and capture a higher level explanation of the essence of the proof. We analysed the design options for tactics by using metrics which relate to human readability, such as the number of inferences and the amount of clutter present in diagrams. Thus, in contrast to the normal case with sentential tactics, our tactics are designed to not only prove the theorem, but also to support explanation.
rate research
Read More
Diagrammatic logics were introduced in 2002, with emphasis on the notions of specifications and models. In this paper we improve the description of the inference process, which is seen as a Yoneda functor on a bicategory of fractions. A diagrammatic logic is defined from a morphism of limit sketches (called a propagator) which gives rise to an adjunction, which in turn determines a bicategory of fractions. The propagator, the adjunction and the bicategory provide respectively the syntax, the models and the inference process for the logic. Then diagrammatic logics and their morphisms are applied to the semantics of side effects in computer languages.
Learning to solve diagrammatic reasoning (DR) can be a challenging but interesting problem to the computer vision research community. It is believed that next generation pattern recognition applications should be able to simulate human brain to understand and analyze reasoning of images. However, due to the lack of benchmarks of diagrammatic reasoning, the present research primarily focuses on visual reasoning that can be applied to real-world objects. In this paper, we present a diagrammatic reasoning dataset that provides a large variety of DR problems. In addition, we also propose a Knowledge-based Long Short Term Memory (KLSTM) to solve diagrammatic reasoning problems. Our proposed analysis is arguably the first work in this research area. Several state-of-the-art learning frameworks have been used to compare with the proposed KLSTM framework in the present context. Preliminary results indicate that the domain is highly related to computer vision and pattern recognition research with several challenging avenues.
This paper is a submission to the contest: How to combine logics? at the World Congress and School on Universal Logic III, 2010. We claim that combining things, whatever these things are, is made easier if these things can be seen as the objects of a category. We define the category of diagrammatic logics, so that categorical constructions can be used for combining diagrammatic logics. As an example, a combination of logics using an opfibration is presented, in order to study computational side-effects due to the evolution of the state during the execution of an imperative program.
Abstract reasoning, particularly in the visual domain, is a complex human ability, but it remains a challenging problem for artificial neural learning systems. In this work we propose MXGNet, a multilayer graph neural network for multi-panel diagrammatic reasoning tasks. MXGNet combines three powerful concepts, namely, object-level representation, graph neural networks and multiplex graphs, for solving visual reasoning tasks. MXGNet first extracts object-level representations for each element in all panels of the diagrams, and then forms a multi-layer multiplex graph capturing multiple relations between objects across different diagram panels. MXGNet summarises the multiple graphs extracted from the diagrams of the task, and uses this summarisation to pick the most probable answer from the given candidates. We have tested MXGNet on two types of diagrammatic reasoning tasks, namely Diagram Syllogisms and Raven Progressive Matrices (RPM). For an Euler Diagram Syllogism task MXGNet achieves state-of-the-art accuracy of 99.8%. For PGM and RAVEN, two comprehensive datasets for RPM reasoning, MXGNet outperforms the state-of-the-art models by a considerable margin.
Graded modal types systems and coeffects are becoming a standard formalism to deal with context-dependent computations where code usage plays a central role. The theory of program equivalence for modal and coeffectful languages, however, is considerably underdeveloped if compared to the denotational and operational semantics of such languages. This raises the question of how much of the theory of ordinary program equivalence can be given in a modal scenario. In this work, we show that coinductive equivalences can be extended to a modal setting, and we do so by generalising Abramskys applicative bisimilarity to coeffectful behaviours. To achieve this goal, we develop a general theory of ternary program relations based on the novel notion of a comonadic lax extension, on top of which we define a modal extension of Abramskys applicative bisimilarity (which we dub modal applicative bisimilarity). We prove such a relation to be a congruence, this way obtaining a compositional technique for reasoning about modal and coeffectful behaviours. But this is not the end of the story: we also establish a correspondence between modal program relations and program distances. This correspondence shows that modal applicative bisimilarity and (a properly extended) applicative bisimilarity distance coincide, this way revealing that modal program equivalences and program distances are just two sides of the same coin.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
