The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning1
Abstract
A fundamental computational limit on automated reasoning and its effect on knowledge representation is examined. Basically, the problem is that it can be more difficult to reason correctly with one representational language than with another and, moreover, that this difficulty increases dramatically as the expressive power of the language increases. This leads to a tradeoff between the expressiveness of a representational language and its computational tractability. Here we show that this tradeoff can be seen to underlie the differences among a number of existing representational formalisms, in addition to motivating many of the current research issues in knowledge representation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407 · Cited by 8,141
Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals
Allen, J. F. (1983) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/182.358434 · Cited by 7,593 · cited 1×
“An excellent example of this is the representation of time described in Allen (1983).”
BackgroundThe complexity of theorem-proving procedures
Cook, S. A. (1971) · Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '71 · doi:10.1145/800157.805047 · Cited by 6,385
Cited by
Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis
(1998) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-27773-7 · Cited by 1,163
Attributive concept descriptions with complements
Schmidt-Schauß, M., & Smolka, G. (1991) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(91)90078-x · Cited by 962
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
(2024) · Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-23161-2_300700 · Cited by 819
Managing uncertainty and vagueness in description logics for the Semantic Web
Lukasiewicz, T., & Straccia, U. (2008) · Journal of Web Semantics · doi:10.1016/j.websem.2008.04.001 · Cited by 473
LaSSIE: a knowledge-based software information system
Devanbu, P., Brachman, R., Selfridge, P. G., & Ballard, B. W. (1991) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/103167.103172 · Cited by 340
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Levesque, H. J., & Brachman, R. J.
- Venue
- Computational Intelligence
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-02
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 78-93
- ISSN
- 0824-7935 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8640
- OpenAlex
- W1989040088
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8640.1987.tb00176.x
- The paper
- Levesque, H. J., & Brachman, R. J. (1987). Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning1. Computational Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.1987.tb00176.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
