Premium
GUARANTEED COVERAGE VERSUS INTELLIGENT SAMPLING: A REPLY TO SACKS AND DOYLE 1
Author(s) -
Kuipers Benjamin,
Crawford James
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
computational intelligence
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.353
H-Index - 52
eISSN - 1467-8640
pISSN - 0824-7935
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-8640.1992.tb00360.x
Subject(s) - citation , library science , computer science , information retrieval , artificial intelligence , operations research , psychology , mathematics
People use both expert and commonsense knowledge to reason about the behavior of physical systems in spite of incomplete knowledge. Problem-solving tasks such as diagnosis and design necessarily involve reasoning about systems which are incompletely known, but for which reliable behavioral predictions are important. A number of fields-ranging from economics, to the mathematics of dynamical systems, to artificial intelligence-have developed methods for determining the qualitative behavior of incompletely specified systems. Elisha Sacks and Jon Doyle (1992) (S+D) have written a critique of A1 research on qualitative reasoning, in which one useful contrast between research approaches is buried in a forest of misleading or incorrect claims. The useful contrast is between two reasonable approaches to exploring the space of models consistent with incomplete knowledge about a physical mechanism: