{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022975929978118162, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Viable inference systems

Because uncertain and provisional reasoning is an inherent part of intelligent systems, a diverse (and competing) array of formalisms for handling uncertain inference has been developed in theory and practice. Each of these formalisms tends to be argued and justified on its own ground, starting from assumptions which ensure its “correctness” or “optimality.” It is argued here, however, that the key concept for an intelligent system is viability - it is as unproductive to seek “correctness” in open inference systems as it would be to prove the “optimality” of a biological organism. Several inference formalisms are examined in the light of this criticism. The viability of systems based on these formalisms is seen to rest critically on their robustness to changes in their context. The assumptions which usually function to hold that context fixed must thus be critically examined.