Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

KERAIA: An Adaptive and Explainable Framework for Dynamic Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read KERAIA turns unstructured human expertise into executable, context-sensitive, explainable AI.

desk verdict A coherent symbolic KR architecture worth serious review, but the evaluation is narrative rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04313 v1 pith:HYANPQGQ submitted 2025-05-07 cs.AI cs.ETcs.SC

Stephen Richard Varey , Alessandro Di Stefano , The Anh Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.ETcs.SC MSC 68T3068T27
keywords KnowledgerepresentationSymbolicAIExplainableFrame-basedreasoningDynamicrelationsengineeringContext-awareLinesofthought
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces KERAIA, a symbolic knowledge-engineering framework that aims to bridge the gap between unstructured, often tacit human expertise and the executable, computationally tractable knowledge that AI systems need. Its central claim is that combining Clouds of Knowledge, Dynamic Relations, Lines of Thought, and Cloud Elaboration makes knowledge representation more flexible, context-sensitive, and transparent than traditional static ontologies, rule sets, or knowledge graphs. If correct, KERAIA would let engineers build AI systems for dynamic, high-stakes domains where every reasoning step can be audited and different inference methods can be mixed freely. The authors validate the framework through three case studies (naval surveillance, water-treatment diagnostics, and the game of RISK) and a code-volume comparison showing KERAIA representations are more compact than those of established paradigms. The load-bearing premise is that the described software platform actually runs these case studies, since the paper's evidence of a working implementation relies on the contents of a public code repository rather than on demonstrated outputs.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Line of Thought (LoT), an explicit, first-class, directed sequence of Knowledge Sources that guides inference and leaves a trace for explanation, together with Dynamic Relations (DRels), which replace static inheritance with runtime-evaluated conditional sharing of properties and methods. Clouds of Knowledge provide dynamic, nested scope for Knowledge Sources, and Cloud Elaboration transforms knowledge within and across clouds. The KSYNTH representation language packages all of these constructs, and the General Purpose Paradigm Builder (GPPB) integrates diverse inference methods by attaching them as 'responders' to individual Knowledge Sources.

What would settle it

Inspect the publicly released KERAIA code and execution logs: if the KSYNTH processor cannot parse and run the naval scenario's Lines of Thought, or if the water-treatment and RISK case studies leave no runnable traces, then the framework's practical applicability claim is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that KERAIA extends classic frame-based reasoning and K-lines into a working framework where every knowledge unit is a Knowledge Source (KS) that can carry data, inference methods, triggers, and explanations. Clouds of Knowledge group these KSs dynamically and can nest, so context (a scenario, a viewpoint, a hypothetical state) is a first-class part of the representation. Inheritance is no longer a fixed 'is-a' relationship: Dynamic Relations evaluate conditions at runtime (for example, a helicopter only inherits a ship's speed while it is landed aboard). Lines of Thought connect KSs into explicit reasoning pathways, giving every conclusion a traceable audit trail. The KSYNTH language encodes these constructs, and the General Purpose Paradigm Builder lets different inference engines (rule-based, procedural, causal, analogical) be attached to specific KSs. The navy, water-treatment, and RISK case studies are presented as evidence that these mechanisms generalize, and a comparative analysis is presented as evidence that KERAIA is more compact for complex dynamic domains than established paradigms.

Load-bearing premise

That the KERAIA software platform is actually implemented and that the naval, water-treatment, and RISK case studies were actually executed on it, because the paper's evidence for a working system is inferential rather than demonstrated outputs or runtime traces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A system built in KERAIA can change how its knowledge is connected as the world changes: a relationship between two entities (such as a helicopter inheriting a ship's speed) appears and disappears based on runtime conditions, something static 'is-a' hierarchies cannot express.
  • Every decision the system makes carries an explicit, replayable path of the Knowledge Sources it activated, so operators and auditors can see exactly why a conclusion was reached rather than trusting a black box.
  • Because the General Purpose Paradigm Builder lets different reasoning styles live inside one framework, a single knowledge base can mix forward-chaining rules, causal models, procedures, and analogical reasoning without ad hoc middleware.
  • The reported code-volume comparison implies that modeling a complex dynamic scenario in KERAIA requires less code than equivalent models in ontologies plus SWRL, case-based reasoning, knowledge graphs, causal reasoning, or pure rule-based systems.
  • The three case studies suggest the same framework can serve military command support, industrial diagnostics, and strategic game-playing, supporting the claim of generalizability across qualitatively different domains.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A missing but straightforward extension is to formalize Dynamic Relations as non-monotonic or default-logic rules: each DRel condition is essentially a default that can be defeated when the runtime condition fails, which would connect KERAIA to the well-studied theory of non-monotonic reasoning and give it a semantics it currently lacks.
  • Since each KS has an 'explains' slot, the LoT audit trail could be turned directly into natural-language explanations by concatenating those slots at runtime; the paper mentions narrative analysis but does not develop it into a concrete generator, and implementing that would be a natural test of the XAI claim.
  • The RISK case study implies a measurable prediction the paper does not report: a KERAIA bot using strategic rules should beat random, benevolent, and 'cheater' baseline bots in head-to-head matches; running that experiment at scale would convert the qualitative claim of strategic competence into a falsifiable result.
  • The code-volume advantage is claimed for a single representative scenario; a testable extension is to scale the naval scenario (more tracks, more platforms, more DRels) and measure whether KERAIA's runtime remains viable, since the paper acknowledges that performance benchmarking is future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces KERAIA, a symbolic knowledge representation and reasoning framework built on extensions of Minsky's frame-based ideas and K-lines. It specifies novel constructs (Clouds of Knowledge, Dynamic Relations, Lines of Thought, Cloud Elaboration), a dedicated representation language (KSYNTH), a multi-paradigm inference integration mechanism (GPPB), and a software platform with a public GitHub repository. The authors claim the framework offers a more flexible, dynamic, explainable, and integrated approach than traditional KR systems, and they support this with three case studies (naval surveillance, water-treatment diagnostics, and the board game RISK) plus a code-volume comparison against ontologies, rule-based systems, knowledge graphs, causal reasoning, and case-based reasoning. The paper is clearly written and the design narrative is detailed, but the validation is almost entirely qualitative; several load-bearing quantitative claims are either unquantified or rest on undisclosed methodology.

Significance. If the framework were convincingly validated, it would be a useful contribution to symbolic knowledge engineering, especially for applications requiring context sensitivity and explainability. The paper has real strengths: the LoT mechanism provides a concrete, first-class traceability construct; the discussion of DRels identifies an important limitation of static inheritance; the authors provide a public repository and candidly acknowledge limitations in Section IV.B. However, the central claim of advancing the state of the art is not yet supported by the evidence actually presented. The RISK results are reported without numbers, the NLOC comparison uses undisclosed normalization weights, and the existence of a functional implementation is inferred from the case studies rather than demonstrated. The significance of KERAIA is therefore conditional on additional evidence and on reframing the contribution as a conceptual architecture plus illustrative scenarios, rather than a fully validated system.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.E] The statement that 'The KERAIA AIAsset consistently outperformed baseline bots' is not supported by any numerical data in the manuscript; no win/loss statistics, average game length, standard deviation, or statistical test is provided. Since this is the only quantitative-looking evaluation result, its absence leaves the strategic decision-making case study purely demonstrative. Please either add the underlying results (e.g., a table of game outcomes across strategies) or explicitly downgrade the claim to a qualitative demonstration.
  2. [Section II-G] The text states that the case studies 'strongly imply' a functional implementation, which is circular: the case studies are used to evidence the implementation while the implementation is used to validate the case studies. The repository described in Section II-H may resolve this, but the paper should show concrete executed outputs, such as a sensor-fusion trace or a RISK turn log, and identify a specific repository commit or run instructions so that the claims are independently checkable.
  3. [Table I (Section III.C)] The code-volume comparison reports KERAIA as 27 with increases up to 270%, but the 'normalization weights' used to define NLOC are never specified, nor are the raw counts or the source artifacts for the alternative paradigms. Without these, the claimed compactness advantages cannot be recalculated and are not reproducible evidence. Please disclose the weights, the measurement protocol, and ideally the exact files or scripts used.
  4. [Section IV.B] The limitations section concedes that 'rigorous quantitative evaluation ... is needed' and that the formal semantics of DRels and Cloud Elaboration 'may require further development.' These concessions are difficult to reconcile with the abstract's claim that the framework is 'validated' through case studies. The framing should distinguish a conceptual framework with illustrative scenarios from a validated system; the introduction, abstract, and conclusion should be revised to reflect the level of evidence actually provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II-F] There is an incomplete sentence in the Knowledge Acquisition Bottleneck bullet: 'Eliciting, formalizing and maintaining knowledge remains a significant challenge (the'. This sentence should be completed or removed.
  2. [References] Reference [9] contains a placeholder 'accessed: YYYY-MM-DD', and references [6] and [16] are duplicates of the same Minsky K-lines work; please clean up the bibliography.
  3. [Table I] The row 'KERAIA 27 Baseline' is ambiguous; it should clarify whether 27 is the absolute code volume in NLOC units or a normalized baseline value, and the units should be stated.
  4. [General] Terminology is inconsistent across the paper: 'K-lines', 'KLines', and 'K lines' are used interchangeably, as are 'CoK', 'Cloud', and 'Clouds of Knowledge'. Please standardize the notation.
Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The framework rests on domain assumptions about the suitability of Minsky-style representations and the functionality of the reference implementation; its comparative claims depend on hand-set normalization weights. No invented physical entities are proposed, but the paper introduces several new conceptual constructs (Clouds, DRels, LoTs, KSYNTH) that lack formal semantics and external falsifiable handles.

free parameters (2)
  • NLOC normalization weights = unspecified
    The comparative code-volume claim in Section III-C relies on 'normalized lines of code' with 'normalization weights' (e.g., declarative vs procedural statements weighted differently). The weights are not published, and changing them changes the 89-270% advantage figures.
  • RISK rule thresholds (e.g., armyCount < 5) = 5 (example threshold)
    Section III-E shows a reinforcement rule with 'armyCount < 5' marked as an example threshold; no sensitivity analysis is provided, so the qualitative performance results depend on hand-set heuristic constants.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Minsky's frame-based representations and K-lines are a suitable foundation for dynamic, explainable knowledge representation.
    The entire framework is built on this premise (Sections II-B and II-G); if this foundation is wrong, the framework's motivation collapses.
  • domain assumption The publicly referenced GitHub repository contains a working implementation of the described architecture.
    Section II-G says the case studies 'strongly imply' a functional implementation; no build instructions or execution artifacts are shown, so the paper relies on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Context-sensitive inheritance via runtime-evaluated DRels can be implemented with acceptable overhead.
    Section II-G acknowledges DRel evaluation overhead and describes locality and pruning strategies, but no benchmarks support this.
invented entities (4)
  • Clouds of Knowledge
    purpose: Dynamic, nested aggregations of Knowledge Sources for context-driven knowledge organization.
    They are a new representational construct; the paper offers case-study illustrations but no falsifiable external prediction.
  • Dynamic Relations (DRels)
    purpose: Context-sensitive inheritance and relationship links between Knowledge Sources.
    The helicopter/ship example demonstrates conditional inheritance, but there is no independent benchmark showing this cannot be done with rule-based or ontology mechanisms.
  • Lines of Thought (LoTs)
    purpose: Explicit, traceable reasoning paths for inference guidance and XAI audit trails.
    LoTs are the main explainability mechanism; their value is illustrated in the naval example, but not measured against user comprehension or trust.
  • KSYNTH language
    purpose: A structured text language for representing all KERAIA constructs, with a parser and processor.
    No grammar, parser, or formal semantics is included in the paper; the claim rests on the repository.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KERAIA: An Adaptive and Explainable Framework for Dynamic Knowledge Representation and Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYANPQGQ

@misc{pith2026250504313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KERAIA: An Adaptive and Explainable Framework for Dynamic Knowledge Representation and Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYANPQGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04313}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce KERAIA, a novel framework and software platform for symbolic knowledge engineering designed to address the persistent challenges of representing, reasoning with, and executing knowledge in dynamic, complex, and context-sensitive environments. The central research question that motivates this work is: How can unstructured, often tacit, human expertise be effectively transformed into computationally tractable algorithms that AI systems can efficiently utilise? KERAIA seeks to bridge this gap by building on foundational concepts such as Minsky's frame-based reasoning and K-lines, while introducing significant innovations. These include Clouds of Knowledge for dynamic aggregation, Dynamic Relations (DRels) for context-sensitive inheritance, explicit Lines of Thought (LoTs) for traceable reasoning, and Cloud Elaboration for adaptive knowledge transformation. This approach moves beyond the limitations of traditional, often static, knowledge representation paradigms. KERAIA is designed with Explainable AI (XAI) as a core principle, ensuring transparency and interpretability, particularly through the use of LoTs. The paper details the framework's architecture, the KSYNTH representation language, and the General Purpose Paradigm Builder (GPPB) to integrate diverse inference methods within a unified structure. We validate KERAIA's versatility, expressiveness, and practical applicability through detailed analysis of multiple case studies spanning naval warfare simulation, industrial diagnostics in water treatment plants, and strategic decision-making in the game of RISK. Furthermore, we provide a comparative analysis against established knowledge representation paradigms (including ontologies, rule-based systems, and knowledge graphs) and discuss the implementation aspects and computational considerations of the KERAIA platform.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04313 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. KERAIA - Functional overview – [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Assemblies extraction process. Once defined, a template can be instantiated with specific instance values from the data set, tailoring operations to the context. Upon successful pattern matching and instantiation, the GPPB generates a new output structure based on the template, facilitating complex data transformations and the integration of various reasoning paradigms. Responders within KSs encapsulate the logic or… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schema graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frame View ment, Naval, RISK) successfully modeled and analyzed strongly implies that a functional implementation of the core framework (KSYNTH processor, execution engine capable of handling Clouds, KSs, DRels, LoTs, GPPB integration) exists and was used.The comparati…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ultragraphs H. Implementation Repository Overview The implementation details for the KERAIA (Knowledge Engineering and Reference AI Architecture) project are pub￾licly available in a dedicated GitHub repository located at https://github.com/srvarey/keraia. This reposit…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: KERAIA Core Concepts. vant factors are considered and appropriate reasoning patterns are applied. B. KERAIA Implementation Details The implementation elaborates on the specific KERAIA structures used, emphasizing adaptability and context￾sensitivity: • Clouds of Knowle…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Naval Scenario Evolution . Illustrates the dynamic flow of information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The next decade in ai: Four steps towards robust artificial intelligence,

    G. Marcus, “The next decade in ai: Four steps towards robust artificial intelligence,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06177, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2002.06177

    arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    Wooldridge, The road to conscious machines: The story of AI

    M. Wooldridge, The road to conscious machines: The story of AI . Penguin UK, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Readings in knowl- edge representation,

    R. J. Brachman and H. J. Levesque, “Readings in knowl- edge representation,” AT and T Bell Labs., Tech. Rep., 1985

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    J. F. Sowa, Knowledge representation: logical, philo- sophical and computational foundations . Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1999

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Semantic networks,

    J. F. Sowa et al., “Semantic networks,” Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 1493–1511, 1992

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    K-lines: A theory of memory,

    M. Minsky, “K-lines: A theory of memory,” Cognitive science, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 117–133, 1980

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    A (very) brief history of artificial intelligence,

    B. G. Buchanan, “A (very) brief history of artificial intelligence,” Ai Magazine , vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 53–53, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Baader, I

    F. Baader, I. Horrocks, C. Lutz, and U. Sattler, An In- troduction to Description Logic . Cambridge University Press, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Suggestions for owl 3,

    P. Hitzler, “Suggestions for owl 3,” in CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 529, 2009, accessed: YYYY-MM-DD. [Online]. Available: https://corescholar.libraries.wright. edu/cse/33

    2009

  2. [10]

    Case-based reasoning: Foun- dational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches,

    A. Aamodt and E. Plaza, “Case-based reasoning: Foun- dational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches,” AI Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 39– 59, 1994. 20

    1994

  3. [11]

    Knowledge representation and reason- ing,

    H. J. Levesque, “Knowledge representation and reason- ing,” Annual review of computer science , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 255–287, 1986

    1986

  4. [12]

    Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences,

    T. Miller, “Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 267, pp. 1–38, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Explainable artificial intelligence (xai),

    D. Gunning, “Explainable artificial intelligence (xai),” Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tech. Rep., 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Keraia: A knowledge engineering and reference ai architecture,

    S. R. Varey, A. Di Stefano, and T. A. Han, “Keraia: A knowledge engineering and reference ai architecture,” in International Congress on Information and Communica- tion Technology. Springer, 2024, pp. 329–347

    2024

  7. [15]

    Adaptive knowledge representation with keraia: A naval warfare case study,

    S. Varey, A. Di Stefano, and T. A. Han, “Adaptive knowledge representation with keraia: A naval warfare case study,” in 16th IEEE International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Information Management & Ap- plication (SKIMA 2025) Proceedings . IEEE, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    K-lines: A theory of memory,

    M. Minsky, “K-lines: A theory of memory,” MIT, Tech. Rep., 1988. [Online]. Available: https://dspace.mit.edu/ handle/1721.1/5739

    1988

  9. [17]

    Semantic networks,

    M. R. Quillian, “Semantic networks,” in Semantic Infor- mation Processing, M. L. Minsky, Ed. MIT Press, 1968

    1968

  10. [18]

    A framework for representing knowledge,

    M. Minsky, “A framework for representing knowledge,” 1974

    1974

  11. [19]

    Knowledge graphs,

    A. Hogan, E. Blomqvist, M. Cochez, C. d’Amato, G. de Melo, C. Gutierrez, S. Kirrane, J. E. L. Gayo, R. Navigli, S. Neumaier, A.-C. N. Ngomo, A. Polleres, S. M. Rashid, A. Rula, L. Schmelzeisen, J. Sequeda, S. Staab, and A. Zimmermann, “Knowledge graphs,” ACM Computing Surveys ...

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lakoff and M

    G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors we live by . Uni- versity of Chicago press, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    ” blending

    M. K. Hiraga, “” blending” and an interpretation of haiku: A cognitive approach,” Poetics Today, pp. 461– 481, 1999

    1999

  14. [22]

    Computational approaches to analogical rea- soning: A comparative analysis,

    R. P. Hall, “Computational approaches to analogical rea- soning: A comparative analysis,” Artificial intelligence , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 39–120, 1989

    1989

  15. [23]

    Analogical inferences mediated by relational categories,

    R. A. Minervino, “Analogical inferences mediated by relational categories,” Cognitive Psychology , vol. 142, p. 101561, May 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101561

    2023

  16. [24]

    Extending sme to handle large-scale cognitive modeling,

    K. D. Forbus, R. W. Ferguson, and A. Lovett, “Extending sme to handle large-scale cognitive modeling,” Cognitive Science, vol. 41, no. 5, Jul 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    F. J. Varela, E. Thompson, and E. Rosch, The embodied mind, revised edition: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT press, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Mental models of dynamic systems are different: Adjusting for heterogeneous granularity,

    M. F. G. Schaffernicht and S. N. Groesser, “Mental models of dynamic systems are different: Adjusting for heterogeneous granularity,” European Journal of Opera- tional Research, vol. 312, no. 2, pp. 653–667, Jan 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    What ai can do for battle management: A report of the first aaai workshop on ai applications to battle management,

    R. P. Bonasso, “What ai can do for battle management: A report of the first aaai workshop on ai applications to battle management,” AI Magazine , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 77–77, 1988

    1988

  20. [28]

    Achieving a decision paradigm for distributed warfare resource management,

    B. W. Young and J. M. Green, “Achieving a decision paradigm for distributed warfare resource management,” in 2015 Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon) Proceedings, 2015, pp. 269–276

    2015

  21. [29]

    A big data layered architecture and functional units for the multimedia internet of things (miot),

    K. Seng and L.-M. Ang, “A big data layered architecture and functional units for the multimedia internet of things (miot),” IEEE Transactions on Multi-Scale Computing Systems, vol. PP, pp. 1–1, 12 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Real-time big data with the lambda archi- tecture,

    G. Harrison, “Real-time big data with the lambda archi- tecture,” Database trends and applications, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 31, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Knowledge-driven digital twin manufacturing cell towards intelligent manufacturing,

    G. Zhou, C. Zhang, Z. Li, K. Ding, and C. Wang, “Knowledge-driven digital twin manufacturing cell towards intelligent manufacturing,” International Journal of Production Research , vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1034– 1051, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00207543.201...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Using digital twins and intelligent cognitive agencies to build platforms for automated cxo future of work,

    J.-T. Amenyo, “Using digital twins and intelligent cognitive agencies to build platforms for automated cxo future of work,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/1808.07627

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    (2023) Neo4j connections: Generative ai and knowledge graphs

    Neo4j. (2023) Neo4j connections: Generative ai and knowledge graphs. [Online]. Available: https://neo4j. com/

    2023

  26. [34]

    TinkerPop

    A. TinkerPop. (2023) Apache tinkerpop. [Online]. Available: https://tinkerpop.apache.org/

    2023

  27. [35]

    A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acqui- sition, and applications,

    S. Ji, S. Pan, E. Cambria, P. Marttinen, and S. Y . Philip, “A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acqui- sition, and applications,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 494– 514, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    An introduction to relational ontology,

    W. J. Wildman, “An introduction to relational ontology,” The Trinity and an entangled world: Relationality in physical science and theology , pp. 55–73, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a survey,

    A. Versailles, N. Bassiliades, and T. Patkos, “Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a survey,” The Knowledge Engineering Review , vol. 36, pp. e5, 1 of 35, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

    2021

  30. [38]

    Chatgpt: More than a weapon of mass deception, ethical challenges and responses from the human-centered artificial intelligence (hcai) perspective,

    A. J. G. Sison, M. T. Daza, R. Gozalo-Brizuela, and E. C. Garrido-Merch´an, “Chatgpt: More than a weapon of mass deception, ethical challenges and responses from the human-centered artificial intelligence (hcai) perspective,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11215 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    An era of chatgpt as a significant futuristic support tool: A study on features, abilities, and challenges,

    A. Haleem, M. Javaid, and R. P. Singh, “An era of chatgpt as a significant futuristic support tool: A study on features, abilities, and challenges,” BenchCouncil transactions on benchmarks, standards and evaluations , vol. 2, no. 4, p. 100089, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    From ac- tivity recognition to intention recognition for assisted liv- ing within smart homes,

    J. Rafferty, C. D. Nugent, J. Liu, and L. Chen, “From ac- tivity recognition to intention recognition for assisted liv- ing within smart homes,” IEEE Transactions on Human- Machine Systems, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 368–379, 2017. 21

    2017

  33. [41]

    Elder care via intention recognition and evolution prospection,

    L. M. Pereira and T. A. Han, “Elder care via intention recognition and evolution prospection,” inApplications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management , S. Abreu and D. Seipel, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 170–187

    2011

  34. [42]

    T. A. Han, Intention Recognition, Commitments and Their Roles in the Evolution of Cooperation: From Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Evolutionary Game Theory Models. Springer SAPERE series, 2013, vol. 9

    2013

  35. [43]

    Towards a rigorous sci- ence of interpretable machine learning,

    F. Doshi-Velez and B. Kim, “Towards a rigorous sci- ence of interpretable machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Metrics for explainable ai: Challenges and prospects,

    R. R. Hoffman, S. T. Mueller, G. Klein, and J. Litman, “Metrics for explainable ai: Challenges and prospects,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04608 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    D. E. Berlyne, Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity . McGraw-Hill, 1960

    1960

  38. [46]

    Measuring trust in automated vehicles: A replication and multi- method evaluation,

    M. Langer, D. Oster, P. K ¨onig, and J. Funke, “Measuring trust in automated vehicles: A replication and multi- method evaluation,” Human Factors, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 78–89, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Trust in ai: Interactions with a human-xai work system,

    H. Kaur, K. Swingler, K. Curran, and N. Aslam, “Trust in ai: Interactions with a human-xai work system,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , 2020, pp. 356–366

    2020

  40. [48]

    A context-oriented view,

    P. Br ´ezillon and P. Zarat ´e, “A context-oriented view,” Journal of Decision Systems , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 11–26, 2008

    2008

  41. [49]

    Reasoning with contextual knowledge and influence diagrams,

    E. Acar and R. Pe ˜naloza, “Reasoning with contextual knowledge and influence diagrams,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR) . IJCAI, 2020, pp. 13–22. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2007.00571

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Contextual reasoning distilled,

    M. Benerecetti, P. Bouquet, and C. Ghidini, “Contextual reasoning distilled,” Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 279–305, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://www. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09528130050111446

    doi

  43. [51]

    Contextual reasoning in context- aware systems,

    H. R. Schmidtke, “Contextual reasoning in context- aware systems,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE) . IEEE, 2012, pp. 82–89. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore. ieee.org/document/6296214

    2012

  44. [52]

    Theories and uses of context in knowledge representation and reasoning,

    P. Bouquet, C. Ghidini, F. Giunchiglia, and E. Blanzieri, “Theories and uses of context in knowledge representation and reasoning,” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 875–894, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0378216602001455 22

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.