Using cognitive science theories, Forbus and his collaborators have developed a model that could give computers the ability to reason more like humans and even make moral decisions. Called the structure-mapping engine (SME), the new model is capable of analogical problem solving, including capturing the way humans spontaneously use analogies between situations to solve moral dilemmas. "In terms of thinking like humans, analogies are where it's at," said Forbus, Walter P. Murphy Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in Northwestern's McCormick School of Engineering. "Humans use relational statements fluidly to describe things, solve problems, indicate causality, and weigh moral dilemmas." The theory underlying the model is psychologist Dedre Gentner's structure-mapping theory of analogy and similarity, which has been used to explain and predict many psychology phenomena.

Autonomous systems must consider the moral ramifications of their actions. Moral norms vary among people and depend on common sense, posing a challenge for encoding them explicitly in a system. I propose to develop a model of repeated analogical chaining and analogical reasoning to enable autonomous agents to interactively learn to apply common sense and model an individual’s moral norms.

To deceive involves corrupting the predictions or explanations of others. A deeper understanding of how this works thus requires modeling how human abduction and prediction operate. This paper proposes that most human abduction and prediction are carried out via analogy, over experience and generalizations constructed from experience. I take experience to include cultural products, such as stories. How analogical reasoning and learning can be used to make predictions and explanations is outlined, along with both the advantages of this approach and the technical questions that it raises. Concrete examples involving deception and counter-deception are used to explore these ideas further.

Moral reasoning is important to accurately model as AI systems become ever more integrated into our lives. Moral reasoning is rapid and unconscious; analogical reasoning, which can be unconscious, is a promising approach to model moral reasoning. This paper explores the use of analogical generalizations to improve moral reasoning. Analogical reasoning has already been used to successfully model moral reasoning in the MoralDM model, but it exhaustively matches across all known cases, which is computationally intractable and cognitively implausible for human-scale knowledge bases. We investigate the performance of an extension of MoralDM to use the MAC/FAC model of analogical retrieval over three conditions, across a set of highly confusable moral scenarios.

We are interested in the manipulation skills required by future service robots performing everyday tasks such as preparing food and cleaning in a typical home environment. Such robots must have a robust set of skills that can be applied in the unpredictable and varying circumstances that arise in everyday life.To succeed in such a setting, a service robot must have a strong ability to transfer old skills to new varied settings. We are inspired by the strong transfer ability demonstrated by infants and toddlers on simple manipulation activities, and we are motivated to try and replicate these abilities in an artificial system.We treat this as a problem of making analogies, and describe a theoretical framework which could account for it. We sketch the ideas of a computational model for implementing the required analogical reasoning.

In this summary report I give an account of research conducted over the last two years, showing the suitability and the advantages of applying computational analogy-engines in the analysis and design of analogy-based methods and tools in teaching and education. This overview constitutes the conclusion of the first phase of a multi-stage effort trying to introduce computational models of analogy also to education and the learning sciences, thus opening up these fields to computational tools and methods not only on an instrumental level, but also in analytical, conceptual, and design-oriented studies. I locate the "analogy-engines in the classroom" research program within the bigger schemes of studying human creativity and computational creativity, provide an introduction to the theoretical underpinnings of the endeavor, and revisit three worked out case studies serving as proofs of the feasibility of the overall approach.

Cognitive simulation of analogical processing can be used to answer comparison questions such as: What are the similarities and/or differences between A and B, for concepts A and B in a knowledge base (KB). Previous attempts to use a general-purpose analogical reasoner to answer such questions revealed three major problems: (a) the system presented too much information in the answer, and the salient similarity or difference was not highlighted; (b) analogical inference found some incorrect differences; and (c) some expected similarities were not found. The cause of these problems was primarily a lack of a well-curated KB and, and secondarily, algorithmic deficiencies. In this paper, relying on a well-curated biology KB, we present a specific implementation of comparison questions inspired by a general model of analogical reasoning. We present numerous examples of answers produced by the system and empirical data on answer quality to illustrate that we have addressed many of the problems of the previous system.

This paper provides a framework to construct a computational model of conceptual metaphor. We first analyze how conceptual metaphor is described by Algebraic Semiotic at linguistic level and by Institutional Theory (an abstract model theory) at a general logical level. By the Logic of Determination of Objects, which has been used in a system of semantic annotation and in a building ontologies system, we further provide a new computational model as a rival approach.

Full natural language understanding requires identifying and analyzing the meanings of metaphors, which are ubiquitous in both text and speech. Over the last thirty years, linguistic metaphors have been shown to be based on more general conceptual metaphors, partial semantic mappings between disparate conceptual domains. Though some achievements have been made in identifying linguistic metaphors over the last decade or so, little work has been done to date on automatically identifying conceptual metaphors. This paper describes research on identifying conceptual metaphors based on corpus data. Our method uses as little background knowledge as possible, to ease transfer to new languages and to mini- mize any bias introduced by the knowledge base construction process. The method relies on general heuristics for identifying linguistic metaphors and statistical clustering (guided by Wordnet) to form conceptual metaphor candidates. Human experiments show the system effectively finds meaningful conceptual metaphors.

Qualitative representations are suitable for sketch understanding systems because they highlight important relationships while leaving out details that are not essential for conceptual understanding. These representations can be used to perform spatial analogies between sketches, which determine qualitative similarities and differences. However, there are cases where including quantitative information is necessary for accurately representing a sketch. We describe a method for using quantitative information to constrain qualitative spatial analogies. The utility of this method is demonstrated in the context of a sketch-based educational software system. Importantly, using quantitative information to improve analogical matches is not domain-specific. It can be used in any situation where qualitative and quantitative spatial information must be combined to accurately interpret a sketch. This approach has the potential to improve sketch understanding in educational software applications for highly spatial domains.