Anti-Goal Reasoning: Rethinking the Theory of Goal Reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic2607.20902AuthorsBowen XuAbstractGoal reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) explains how an adaptive system derives means for realizing desired events under insufficient knowledge and resources. However, the representation of avoidance is less clear. A common convention is to express "avoid $G$" as the goal sentence "$\neg G!$", but this notation conflates two different readings: pursuing the negated event $\neg G$, and avoiding the positive event $G$. This paper shows that the conflation can produce a paradoxical case in which an avoidance intention is converted into a positive goal to act merely because acting is usually followed by the absence of hurt. Starting from NAL's basic definition of goals, the framework is extended with a corresponding definition of anti-goals, so that avoidance can be represented without treating it as the pursuit of a negated event. Finally, a mental operation, $\op$, is introduced to connect anti-goal reasoning with ordinary goal reasoning in cases of active prevention. Four minimal case studies check that the resulting rules distinguish pursuit, passive avoidance, active prevention, and withholding action to preserve a desired event.ResourcesView on Hugging FaceRead PDFArXiv
Anti-Goal Reasoning: Rethinking the Theory of Goal Reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic
Goal reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) explains how an adaptive system derives means for realizing desired events under insufficient knowledge and resou...
Related
ResearchLearning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization
Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, training models to resist such signals, hides a failure mode: a model that ignores all context looks robust yet is useless when the context is worth trusting. We recast the problem as selective trust and introduce MIST, a human-annotated benchmark that renders each reasoning item under four matched conditions (clean, misleading, correct-context, and irrelevant-context), together with SC2W, a paired metric counting how often a misle
Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization
Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, tr...
ResearchTracing the Heart: An Evidence-Linked Pipeline for Heart-Failure Feature Engineering
Electronic health record (EHR) feature engineering is a major bottleneck in clinical research and AI, accounting for 39-45% of data scientists' workload. This is especially pronounced in heart failure, which affects an estimated 6.7 million U.S. adults and requires integrating fragmented EHR data with disease-specific, guideline-based clinical reasoning. Existing rule-based and large language model (LLM)-based approaches offer only partial automation with limited maintainability and evidence traceability. We developed the Nimblemind Multi-Agent System (nMAS), an evidence-linked, rubr