Doyle & Patil, "Two Theses of Knowledge Representation"

From: Daniel Lowd (lowd_at_cs.washington.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 22 2003 - 02:47:03 PDT

  • Next message: Sandra B Fan: "Doyle & Patil, "Two Theses of KR" Review"

    This work was largely a refutation of claims made by Levesque and Brachman
    that general knowledge systems should be limited to ensure polynomial-time
    inference while maintaining soundness and completeness.

    Their essential ideas are that the utility of a system depends on more than
    the cost of a worst-case query, and that different systems may be better
    suited to different needs. Both of these ideas are contingent upon the
    observation that there is a tradeoff between expressiveness and computational
    efficiency. Theoretically, this paper could have a significant impact
    on guiding people towards the most useful system rather than simply
    the most efficient one.

    Unfortunately, the exact tradeoff is never formalized, only induced from the
    limitations of KL-one and oblique references to the work of others. While
    the examples of KL-one's limitations are convincing (though perhaps
    exaggerated, given the authors' clear bias), one is left to wonder to what
    extent can we guarantee effeciency and still have a useful representation?
    Is there a continuous spectrum from fully efficient to fully powerful, or
    is it a more complicated space of expressiveness tradeoffs?

    The paper also seemed to focus excessive attention on attacking one particular
    system that the authors found annoying. Other knowledge systems were
    mentioned as well, and occasionally given the attention of a sentence for
    comparison, but the True Enemy was clear -- they might as well have titled
    this paper "KL* Considered Harmful."

    After reading this paper I am left wondering to what extent a single
    system can be made general by allowing different levels of efficiency
    and expressiveness. Could one turn on or off different language features
    to ensure safety or flexibility as necessary?

    Furthermore, to what extent can we automate a translation from a more
    expressive system to a less expressive one (such as KL-one), so that we
    have the benefits of both worlds. Since the translation could be done
    offline, we could afford to let it take exponential time. The efficient
    representation would thus be a cached, pre-processed inference machine.
    Some additional translation might yet be required to make the results
    readable, but this might be a reasonable solution.


  • Next message: Sandra B Fan: "Doyle & Patil, "Two Theses of KR" Review"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Oct 22 2003 - 02:47:16 PDT