Search
1991 Volume 6
Article Contents
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Computational models of scientific discovery

More Information
  • Abstract: Computational modelling of scientific discovery is emerging as an important research field in artificial intelligence. Various computational systems modelling different aspects of scientific research and discovery have been developed. This paper looks at some of these models in order to examine how knowledge is organized in such systems, what forms of representation they have, how their methods of learning and representation are integrated, and the effects of representation on learning. The paper also describes the achievements and shortcomings of these systems, and discusses the obstacles in developing more comprehensive models.
  • 加载中
  • Buchanan BG and Feigenbaum EA, 1978. “Dendral and Meta-Dentral: their application dimension” Artificial Intelligence115–24.

    Google Scholar

    Buchanan BG, Smith DH, White WC, Gritter R, Feigenbaum EA, Lederberg J and Djerassi C, 1976. “Applications of artificial intelligence for chemical inference. XXII. Automatic rule formation in mass spectrometry by means of the meta-DENDRAL program” Journal of the American Chemical Society96 (6168).

    Google Scholar

    Davies PCW, 1985. The forces of Nature (2nd ed), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar

    de Kleer JR, 1986. “An assumption-based TMS” Artificial Intelligence8127–162.

    Google Scholar

    Dietterich TG and Michalski RS, 1983. “A comparative view of selected methods for learning from examples”. In: Michalski RS, Carbonell JS and Mitchell TM, eds., Machine Learning: An artificial intelligence approachMorgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Forbus KD, 1984. “Qualitative process theory” Artificial Intelligence2485–168.

    Google Scholar

    Friedland P, 1979. “Knowledge-based experiment design in molecular genetics” Proceedings Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence285–287.

    Google Scholar

    Holmes FL, 1980. “Hans Krebs and the discovery of the Ornithine Cycle” Federation Proceedings39216–225.

    Google Scholar

    Jones R, 1986. “Generating predictions to aid scientific discovery process” Proceedings Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence513–516.

    Google Scholar

    Karp PD, 1990. “Hypothesis formation as design”. In: Shrager J and Langley P, eds., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formationMorgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Kocabas S, 1989. Functional categorization of knowledge: Applications in modeling scientific research and discovery PhD Thesis, Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, King's College London, University of London.

    Google Scholar

    Kocabas S, 1991a. “Conflict resolution as discovery in particle physics” Machine Learning6277–309.

    Google Scholar

    Kocabas S, 1991b. “Homuncular learning and rule parallelism: An application to BACON” Proceedings International Conference on Control950–954, IEE Conference Publications,London.

    Google Scholar

    Kuhn TS, 1970. The Structure of Scientific RevolutionsUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago, 16.

    Google Scholar

    Kulkarni D, 1989. The processes of scientific research: The strategy of experimentation Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Computer Science. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar

    Kulkarni D and Simon HA, 1988. “The processes of scientific discovery” Cognitive Science12139–175.

    Google Scholar

    Kulkarni D and Simon HA, 1990. “The processes of scientific discovery” In: Shrager J and Langley P, eds., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formationMorgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Langley P, 1978. “BACON1: A general discovery system” In: Proceedings Second National Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies.

    Google Scholar

    Langley P, Simon HA, Bradshaw GL and Zytkow JM, 1987. Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative processesThe MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar

    Lenat DB, 1979. “On automated scientific theory formation: a case study using the AM program” In: Hayes J, Michie D and Mikulich LI, eds., Machine Intelligence9251–283, Halstead, New York.

    Google Scholar

    Lenat DB, 1983a. “The role of heuristics in learning by discovery: three case studies” In: Michalski RS, Carbonell JG and Mitchell TM, eds., Machine Learning: An artificial intelligence approachMorgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Lenat DB, 1983b. “EURISKO: a program that learns new heuristics and domain concepts” Artificial Intelligence21 (1–2) 61–98.

    Google Scholar

    Lenat DB, 1983c. “The role of heuristics in learning by discovery: three case studies” In: Michalski RS, Carbonell JC and Mitchell TM, eds., Machine Learning: An artificial intelligence approach. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Lenat DB, Prakash M and Shepherd M, 1986. “CYC: using common sense knowledge to overcome brittleness and knowledge acquisition bottlenecks” The AI Magazine7 (4) 65–85.

    Google Scholar

    Lenat DB and Feigenbaum EA, 1987. “On the thresholds of knowledge” Proceedings Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1173–1182.

    Google Scholar

    Lenat DB and Guha RV1989. Building large knowledge based systems: Representation and inference in the CYC projectAddison Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar

    Michalski RS, 1983. “A theory and methodology of inductive learning” In Michalski RS, Carbonell JG and Mitchell TM, eds., Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approachMorgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Michalski RS, 1986. “Understanding the nature of learning: issues and research directions” In: Michalski RS, Carbonell JG and Mitchell TM, eds., Machine LearningMorgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Nilsson NJ, 1965. Learning Machines: Foundations of trainable pattern-classifying systemsMcGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar

    Nordhausen B and Langley P, 1990. “An integrated approach to empirical discovery” In: Shrager J and Langley P, eds., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formationMorgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Nordhausen B and Langley P, 1987. “Towards an integrated discovery system” Proceedings Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence198–200.

    Google Scholar

    Omnes R, 1970. Introduction to particle physics (Translated by Barton G) Wiley Interscience, London.

    Google Scholar

    O'Rorke P, Morris S and Schulenburg D, 1990. “Theory formation by abstraction” In: Shrager J and Langley P, eds., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formationMorgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Rajamoney SA, 1990. “A computational approach to theory revision” In: Shrager J and Langley P, eds., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formationMorgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Ritchie GD and Hanna FK, 1984. “AM: a case study in AI methodology” Artificial Intelligence23249–269.

    Google Scholar

    Rose D and Langley P, 1986. “Chemical discovery as belief revision” Machine Learning1423–452.

    Google Scholar

    Rose D and Langley P, 1988. “A hill-climbing approach to machine discovery” Proceedings Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning367–373. Morgan Kaufmann,Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar

    Shrager J and Langley P, 1990. “Computational approaches to scientific discovery” In: Shrager J and Langley P, eds., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formationMorgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Simon HA and Lea G, 1974. “Problem solving and rule induction: A unified view” In: Gregg L, ed., Knowledge and cognition Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar

    Stefik M, 1978. “Inferring DNA structures from segmentation data” Artificial Intelligence1185–114.

    Google Scholar

    Stefik M, 1981a. “Planning with constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1)” Artificial Intelligence2111–139.

    Google Scholar

    Stefik M, 1981b. “Planning and meta-planning (MOLGEN: Part 2)” Artificial Intelligence2141–169.

    Google Scholar

    Thagard P, 1988. Computational philosophy of scienceThe MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar

    Thagard P, and Holyoak K, 1985. “Discovering the wave theory of sound: Inductive inference in the context of problem solving” Proceedings Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence610–612.

    Google Scholar

    Thagard P and Nowak G, 1990. “The conceptual structure of the geological revolution” In: Shrager J and Langley P, eds., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formationMorgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Tweney RD, 1990. “Five questions for computationalists” In: Shrager J and Langley P, eds., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formationMorgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar

    Zytkow JM and Simon HA, 1986. “A theory of historical discovery: the construction of componential models” Machine Learning1107–137.

    Google Scholar

    Zytkow JM, 1990. “Deriving laws through analysis of processes and equations” In: Shrager J and Langley P, eds., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formationMorgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Sakir Kocabas. 1991. Computational models of scientific discovery. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 6: doi: 10.1017/S0269888900005919
    Sakir Kocabas. 1991. Computational models of scientific discovery. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 6: doi: 10.1017/S0269888900005919

Article Metrics

Article views(13) PDF downloads(191)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Computational models of scientific discovery

The Knowledge Engineering Review  6 Article number: 10.1017/S0269888900005919  (1991)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: Computational modelling of scientific discovery is emerging as an important research field in artificial intelligence. Various computational systems modelling different aspects of scientific research and discovery have been developed. This paper looks at some of these models in order to examine how knowledge is organized in such systems, what forms of representation they have, how their methods of learning and representation are integrated, and the effects of representation on learning. The paper also describes the achievements and shortcomings of these systems, and discusses the obstacles in developing more comprehensive models.

    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 19911991Cambridge University Press
References (48)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Sakir Kocabas. 1991. Computational models of scientific discovery. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 6: doi: 10.1017/S0269888900005919
    Sakir Kocabas. 1991. Computational models of scientific discovery. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 6: doi: 10.1017/S0269888900005919
  • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return