BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Ernest Davis

Ernest Davis contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceComputation and LanguageComputer Vision

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - Emerging
10works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

10 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Limits of an AI program for solving college math problems

Drori et al. (2022) report that "A neural network solves, explains, and generates university math problems by program synthesis and few-shot learning at human level ... [It] automatically answers 81\% of university-level mathematics problems." The system they describe is indeed impressive; however, the above description is very much overstated. The work of solving the problems is done, not by a neural network, but by the symbolic algebra package Sympy. Problems of various formats are excluded from consideration. The so-called "explanations" are just rewordings of lines of code. Answers are marked as correct that are not in the form specified in the problem. Most seriously, it seems that in many cases the system uses the correct answer given in the test corpus to guide its path to solving the problem.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Physical Reasoning in an Open World

Most work on physical reasoning, both in artificial intelligence and in cognitive science, has focused on closed-world reasoning, in which it is assumed that the problem specification specifies all relevant objects and substance, all their relations in an initial situation, and all exogenous events. However, in many situations, it is important to do open-world reasoning; that is, making valid conclusions from very incomplete information. We have implemented in Prolog an open-world reasoner for a toy microworld of containers that can be loaded, unloaded, sealed, unsealed, carried, and dumped.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Pragmatic constraints and pronoun reference disambiguation: the possible and the impossible

Pronoun disambiguation in understanding text and discourse often requires the application of both general pragmatic knowledge and context-specific information. In AI and linguistics research, this has mostly been studied in cases where the referent is explicitly stated in the preceding text nearby. However, pronouns in natural text often refer to entities, collections, or events that are only implicitly mentioned previously; in those cases the need to use pragmatic knowledge to disambiguate becomes much more acute and the characterization of the knowledge becomes much more difficult. Extended literary texts at times employ both extremely complex patterns of reference and extremely rich and subtle forms of knowledge. Indeed, it is occasionally possible to have a pronoun that is far separated from its referent in a text. In the opposite direction, pronoun use is affected by considerations of focus of attention and by formal constraints such as a preference for parallel syntactic structures; these can be so strong that no pragmatic knowledge suffices to overrule them.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Review of Winograd Schema Challenge Datasets and Approaches

The Winograd Schema Challenge is both a commonsense reasoning and natural language understanding challenge, introduced as an alternative to the Turing test. A Winograd schema is a pair of sentences differing in one or two words with a highly ambiguous pronoun, resolved differently in the two sentences, that appears to require commonsense knowledge to be resolved correctly. The examples were designed to be easily solvable by humans but difficult for machines, in principle requiring a deep understanding of the content of the text and the situation it describes. This paper reviews existing Winograd Schema Challenge benchmark datasets and approaches that have been published since its introduction.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Winograd Schemas and Machine Translation

A Winograd schema is a pair of sentences that differ in a single word and that contain an ambiguous pronoun whose referent is different in the two sentences and requires the use of commonsense knowledge or world knowledge to disambiguate. This paper discusses how Winograd schemas and other sentence pairs could be used as challenges for machine translation using distinctions between pronouns, such as gender, that appear in the target language but not in the source.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Limitations of Standardized Science Tests as Benchmarks for Artificial Intelligence Research: Position Paper

In this position paper, I argue that standardized tests for elementary science such as SAT or Regents tests are not very good benchmarks for measuring the progress of artificial intelligence systems in understanding basic science. The primary problem is that these tests are designed to test aspects of knowledge and ability that are challenging for people; the aspects that are challenging for AI systems are very different. In particular, standardized tests do not test knowledge that is obvious for people; none of this knowledge can be assumed in AI systems. Individual standardized tests also have specific features that are not necessarily appropriate for an AI benchmark. I analyze the Physics subject SAT in some detail and the New York State Regents Science test more briefly. I also argue that the apparent advantages offered by using standardized tests are mostly either minor or illusory. The one major real advantage is that the significance is easily explained to the public; but I argue that even this is a somewhat mixed blessing. I conclude by arguing that, first, more appropriate collections of exam style problems could be assembled, and second, that there are better kinds of benchmarks than exam-style problems. In an appendix I present a collection of sample exam-style problems that test kinds of knowledge missing from the standardized tests.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Scope and Limits of Simulation in Cognitive Models

It has been proposed that human physical reasoning consists largely of running "physics engines in the head" in which the future trajectory of the physical system under consideration is computed precisely using accurate scientific theories. In such models, uncertainty and incomplete knowledge is dealt with by sampling probabilistically over the space of possible trajectories ("Monte Carlo simulation"). We argue that such simulation-based models are too weak, in that there are many important aspects of human physical reasoning that cannot be carried out this way, or can only be carried out very inefficiently; and too strong, in that humans make large systematic errors that the models cannot account for. We conclude that simulation-based reasoning makes up at most a small part of a larger system that encompasses a wide range of additional cognitive processes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

The Relevance of Proofs of the Rationality of Probability Theory to Automated Reasoning and Cognitive Models

A number of well-known theorems, such as Cox's theorem and de Finetti's theorem. prove that any model of reasoning with uncertain information that satisfies specified conditions of "rationality" must satisfy the axioms of probability theory. I argue here that these theorems do not in themselves demonstrate that probabilistic models are in fact suitable for any specific task in automated reasoning or plausible for cognitive models. First, the theorems only establish that there exists some probabilistic model; they do not establish that there exists a useful probabilistic model, i.e. one with a tractably small number of numerical parameters and a large number of independence assumptions. Second, there are in general many different probabilistic models for a given situation, many of which may be far more irrational, in the usual sense of the term, than a model that violates the axioms of probability theory. I illustrate this second point with an extended examples of two tasks of induction, of a similar structure, where the reasonable probabilistic models are very different.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access