Knowledge Representation Questions and Answers

Q: What is negation as failure?

Under negation as failure the inability to derive a fact licenses its negation, which is sound only if the knowledge base is complete about that fact. It is the operational form of the closed world assumption and is what a logic programming system implements. The other options misstate the direction or the treatment. An inference rule that is convenient and sound only under a condition rarely checked is a persistent source of confident wrong answers.

Q: When is negation as failure unsound?

If a fact is simply absent because nobody recorded it, concluding its negation asserts something unsupported, and in an open domain that happens constantly. Non-termination is a separate practical problem that makes the rule inapplicable rather than unsound. Variable count and derivation are irrelevant. Checking whether the completeness the rule assumes actually holds, before relying on the rule, is exactly the discipline the open and closed world distinction exists to enforce.

Q: What is the qualification problem?

Starting a car requires fuel, a working battery, no potato in the exhaust and indefinitely many further conditions nobody would think to state, so any finite list is incomplete. Default reasoning, assuming nothing unusual holds, is the standard response. The other options describe different difficulties. A problem arising from the open ended nature of the world, rather than from any defect of the formalism, is one that must be managed rather than solved.

Q: Which difficulty concerns the indirect effects of an action?

Moving a briefcase moves everything inside it, and stating every such consequence for every action is impossible, so indirect effects must be derived from domain constraints instead. It is the companion difficulty to the frame and qualification problems. Non-determinism, ordering and preconditions are different issues. Three related problems, all arising from the impossibility of enumerating what an action does and does not do, together constitute the central difficulty of reasoning about action.

Q: How are indirect effects usually handled?

Asserting that the contents of a container are always where the container is lets the indirect effect follow from the constraint rather than from the action's description. Explicit enumeration is what proves impossible, restriction changes the domain, and full recomputation is neither possible nor meaningful. Stating an invariant once, and letting the consequences follow, is the same economy that inheritance provides in a taxonomy.

Q: What is a domain constraint in a representation of action?

Domain constraints hold in every situation and therefore constrain the effects of every action, which is how indirect consequences are derived without enumerating them. Permissions, value ranges and scope boundaries are different notions, though value ranges are a special case. Distinguishing a fact that happens to hold from one that must hold in every situation is what allows the second to do inferential work the first cannot.

Q: What is a mental object in a knowledge representation?

Representing that one agent knows something another does not requires the content of the belief to be an object in the language, which is reification applied to propositions. Fictional entities, abstract concepts and internal data structures are different notions. A system that must model other agents, whether to cooperate or to compete with them, cannot avoid representing what they believe, which is why the machinery is needed rather than merely interesting.

Q: Why does an agent need to represent other agents' beliefs?

Deciding what to tell someone, or predicting how a competitor will act, requires modelling what they already believe rather than what is true. That is why speech act planning and game playing both need the machinery. Consistency with others, storage and truth evaluation are different activities. A representation adequate for a single agent alone turns out to be inadequate as soon as another agent enters the environment, which is a good argument for building it in from the start.

Q: What is the difference between knowledge and belief in such a representation?

The standard treatment makes knowing p entail p while believing p does not, so an agent may believe something false but cannot know it. That difference has consequences for what may be inferred from a report. Certainty, ownership and derivation are different distinctions, though probabilistic treatments exist alongside. A logical property that seems merely philosophical turns out to determine what a system may conclude from another agent's assertion, which makes it a practical matter.

Q: What is an ontology's role in system interoperability?

Two systems can exchange triples freely and still misunderstand each other unless they agree what the terms mean, and an ontology fixes that agreement. Format conversion and transport are separate layers that assume the agreement rather than providing it. Answer verification is a different exercise. That syntactic interoperability is easy and semantic interoperability is hard is the lesson every integration project rediscovers.

81.

What is negation as failure?

A.Negating every fact that has not yet been asserted
B.Concluding a fact is false because it cannot be proved true
C.Failing to prove a negation and concluding the positive fact
D.Treating a failed proof attempt as an error condition

Answer: B

Under negation as failure the inability to derive a fact licenses its negation, which is sound only if the knowledge base is complete about that fact. It is the operational form of the closed world assumption and is what a logic programming system implements. The other options misstate the direction or the treatment. An inference rule that is convenient and sound only under a condition rarely checked is a persistent source of confident wrong answers.

Discuss in Forum

82.

When is negation as failure unsound?

A.When the proof procedure does not terminate on that fact
B.When the fact was derived rather than asserted directly
C.When the knowledge base is incomplete about the fact concerned
D.When the fact concerned involves more than one variable

Answer: C

If a fact is simply absent because nobody recorded it, concluding its negation asserts something unsupported, and in an open domain that happens constantly. Non-termination is a separate practical problem that makes the rule inapplicable rather than unsound. Variable count and derivation are irrelevant. Checking whether the completeness the rule assumes actually holds, before relying on the rule, is exactly the discipline the open and closed world distinction exists to enforce.

Discuss in Forum

83.

What is the qualification problem?

A.Actions cannot be qualified by the agent performing them
B.Qualifying an action requires quantifying over all objects
C.The preconditions of an action change as the world changes
D.No list of preconditions for an action is ever complete

Answer: D

Starting a car requires fuel, a working battery, no potato in the exhaust and indefinitely many further conditions nobody would think to state, so any finite list is incomplete. Default reasoning, assuming nothing unusual holds, is the standard response. The other options describe different difficulties. A problem arising from the open ended nature of the world, rather than from any defect of the formalism, is one that must be managed rather than solved.

Discuss in Forum

84.

Which difficulty concerns the indirect effects of an action?

A.An action's indirect consequences are not stated explicitly
B.An action may have several alternative outcomes
C.The effects of an action depend on the order of execution
D.Actions may be performed only in certain situations

Answer: A

Moving a briefcase moves everything inside it, and stating every such consequence for every action is impossible, so indirect effects must be derived from domain constraints instead. It is the companion difficulty to the frame and qualification problems. Non-determinism, ordering and preconditions are different issues. Three related problems, all arising from the impossibility of enumerating what an action does and does not do, together constitute the central difficulty of reasoning about action.

Discuss in Forum

85.

How are indirect effects usually handled?

A.By recomputing the whole world state after each action
B.By stating domain constraints that must always hold
C.By listing every consequence of every action explicitly
D.By restricting actions to those with no indirect effects

Answer: B

Asserting that the contents of a container are always where the container is lets the indirect effect follow from the constraint rather than from the action's description. Explicit enumeration is what proves impossible, restriction changes the domain, and full recomputation is neither possible nor meaningful. Stating an invariant once, and letting the consequences follow, is the same economy that inheritance provides in a taxonomy.

Discuss in Forum

86.

What is a domain constraint in a representation of action?

A.A restriction on the values a fluent may take
B.A boundary around the part of the world represented
C.A statement that must hold in every reachable situation
D.A limit on which actions an agent is permitted to perform

Answer: C

Domain constraints hold in every situation and therefore constrain the effects of every action, which is how indirect consequences are derived without enumerating them. Permissions, value ranges and scope boundaries are different notions, though value ranges are a special case. Distinguishing a fact that happens to hold from one that must hold in every situation is what allows the second to do inferential work the first cannot.

Discuss in Forum

87.

What is a mental object in a knowledge representation?

A.An object that exists only in the mind and not in reality
B.A concept that cannot be given a physical description
C.A data structure used internally by the reasoning engine
D.A representation of what an agent believes or knows

Answer: D

Representing that one agent knows something another does not requires the content of the belief to be an object in the language, which is reification applied to propositions. Fictional entities, abstract concepts and internal data structures are different notions. A system that must model other agents, whether to cooperate or to compete with them, cannot avoid representing what they believe, which is why the machinery is needed rather than merely interesting.

Discuss in Forum

88.

Why does an agent need to represent other agents' beliefs?

A.To predict their actions and to communicate usefully with them
B.To ensure that its own beliefs remain consistent with theirs
C.To store the knowledge they supply in its own knowledge base
D.To determine whether their beliefs are true or false

Answer: A

Deciding what to tell someone, or predicting how a competitor will act, requires modelling what they already believe rather than what is true. That is why speech act planning and game playing both need the machinery. Consistency with others, storage and truth evaluation are different activities. A representation adequate for a single agent alone turns out to be inadequate as soon as another agent enters the environment, which is a good argument for building it in from the start.

Discuss in Forum

89.

What is the difference between knowledge and belief in such a representation?

A.Knowledge is asserted whereas belief is inferred
B.Knowledge implies truth whereas belief does not
C.Knowledge is certain whereas belief carries a probability
D.Knowledge belongs to the system and belief to other agents

Answer: B

The standard treatment makes knowing p entail p while believing p does not, so an agent may believe something false but cannot know it. That difference has consequences for what may be inferred from a report. Certainty, ownership and derivation are different distinctions, though probabilistic treatments exist alongside. A logical property that seems merely philosophical turns out to determine what a system may conclude from another agent's assertion, which makes it a practical matter.

Discuss in Forum

90.

What is an ontology's role in system interoperability?

A.It provides a network protocol for transmitting knowledge
B.It verifies that the two systems produce the same answers
C.It supplies shared meanings so systems can exchange knowledge
D.It converts between the data formats two systems use

Answer: C

Two systems can exchange triples freely and still misunderstand each other unless they agree what the terms mean, and an ontology fixes that agreement. Format conversion and transport are separate layers that assume the agreement rather than providing it. Answer verification is a different exercise. That syntactic interoperability is easy and semantic interoperability is hard is the lesson every integration project rediscovers.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Topics

Other Subjects

Tags: Knowledge Representation Questions and Answers || Knowledge Representation MCQ Questions and Answers || Knowledge Representation GK Questions and Answers || Knowledge Representation GK MCQ Questions || Knowledge Representation Multiple Choice Questions and Answers || Knowledge Representation GK || GK on Knowledge Representation || Artificial Intelligence Questions and Answers || Artificial Intelligence MCQ Questions and Answers || Artificial Intelligence GK Questions and Answers || GK on Artificial Intelligence

Knowledge Representation Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications