Automatic representation changes in problem solving

We explore methods for improving the performance of AI problem-solving systems by changing problem representations. Researchers have accumulated much evidence of the importance of appropriate representations for the efficiency of AI systems. The same problem may be easy or difficult, depending on the way we describe it and on the search algorithm that we use. Previous work on the automatic improvement of representations has mostly been limited to the design of individual learning algorithms. The user has traditionally been responsible for the choice of algorithms appropriate for a given problem. We describe a system that integrates multiple representation-changing and problem-solving algorithms. The purpose of our research is to formalize the concept of representation, explore its role in problem solving, and confirm the following general hypothesis: An effective representation-changing system can be constructed out of three parts: (1) a library of problem-solving algorithms; (2) a library of algorithms that improve problem representations, by static analysis and learning; (3) a top-level control module that selects appropriate representation changers and a problem solver for each given problem. We have supported this hypothesis by building a system that changes representations in the PRODIGY problem-solving architecture. The library of problem solvers consists of several search engines available in the PRODIGY architecture. The library of representation changers includes novel algorithms for selecting primary effects, generating abstractions, and discarding irrelevant elements of the domain encoding. The control module chooses and applies appropriate representation changers, stores and reuses new representations, and selects problem solvers. To identify effective algorithms, it performs statistical analysis of the past results, as well as heuristic comparisons of the available representations.

[1]  S. Kambhampati,et al.  Universal classical planner: an algorithm for unifying state-space and plan-space planning , 1996 .

[2]  Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery , 1961, Nature.

[3]  Jonathan Schaeffer,et al.  Sokoban: improving the search with relevance cuts , 2001, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[4]  Allen Newell,et al.  GPS, a program that simulates human thought , 1995 .

[5]  Stephen F. Smith,et al.  Proceedings: The Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems , 1998 .

[6]  Steven Minton,et al.  Total-Order and Partial-Order Planning: A Comparative Analysis , 1994, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[7]  David E. Wilkins,et al.  Practical planning - extending the classical AI planning paradigm , 1989, Morgan Kaufmann series in representation and reasoning.

[8]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - IJCAI-95 , 1995 .

[9]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  FLECS: Planning with a Flexible Commitment Strategy , 1995, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[10]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Linkability: Examining Causal Link Commitments in Partial-order Planning , 1994, AIPS.

[11]  David E. Smith,et al.  A critical look at Koblock's hierarchy mechanism , 1992 .

[12]  David E. Wilkins,et al.  Domain-Independent Planning: Representation and Plan Generation , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Robert C. Holte,et al.  Speeding up Problem Solving by Abstraction: A Graph Oriented Approach , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Robert C. Holte,et al.  Searching With Abstractions: A Unifying Framework and New High-Performance Algorithm 1 , 1994 .

[15]  M. A Perez,et al.  Automated Acquisition of Control Knowledge to Improve the Quality of Plans , 1993 .

[16]  Craig A. Kaplan Switch: A Simulation of Representational Change in the Mutilated Checkerboard Problem , 1989 .

[17]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  An analysis of ABSTRIPS , 1992 .

[18]  Jonathan Schaeffer,et al.  Domain-Dependent Single-Agent Search Enhancements , 1999, IJCAI.

[19]  David Warren,et al.  Warplan: a system for generating plans , 1974 .

[20]  Oren Etzioni,et al.  Explanation-Based Learning: A Problem Solving Perspective , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Peter Stone,et al.  Learning to Solve Complex Planning Problems: Finding Useful Auxiliary Problems , 1994 .

[22]  Steven Minton,et al.  Commitment Strategies in Planning: A Comparative Analysis , 1991, IJCAI.

[23]  Richard E. Korf,et al.  Planning as Search: A Quantitative Approach , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Oren Etzioni,et al.  DYNAMIC: A New Role for Training Problems in EBL , 1992, ML.

[25]  Jaime G. Carbonell,et al.  Toward Scaling Up Machine Learning: A Case Study with Derivational Analogy in PRODIGY , 1993 .

[26]  H. Simon,et al.  Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  Eugene Fink,et al.  Integrating planning and learning: the PRODIGY architecture , 1995, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[28]  Amy Unruh,et al.  Two new weak method increments for abstraction , 1993 .

[29]  B. Natarajan Machine Learning: A Theoretical Approach , 1992 .

[30]  Craig A. Knoblock Generating abstraction hierarchies - an automated approach to reducing search in planning , 1993, The Kluwer international series in engineering and computer science.

[31]  Herbert A Simon,et al.  The understanding process: Problem isomorphs , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[32]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Planning and Learning by Analogical Reasoning , 1994, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[34]  Daniel J. Lehmann,et al.  Algebraic Structures for Transitive Closure , 1976, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[35]  J. Davenport Editor , 1960 .

[36]  Tom M. Mitchell,et al.  Learning by experimentation: acquiring and refining problem-solving heuristics , 1993 .

[37]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Retrieval and organizational strategies in conceptual memory: a computer model , 1980 .

[38]  Jaime G. Carbonell,et al.  Towards a General Framework for Composing Disjunctive and Iterative Macro-operators , 1989, IJCAI.

[39]  Mark Stefik,et al.  Planning with Constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1) , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[40]  Robert C. Holte,et al.  Hierarchical A*: Searching Abstraction Hierarchies Efficiently , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[41]  Jaime G. Carbonell,et al.  FERMI: A Flexible Expert Reasoner with Multi-Domain Inferencing , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  CaMeRa: A Computational Model of Multiple Representations , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[43]  Steven Minton,et al.  Integrating Heuristics for Constraint Satisfaction Problems: A Case Study , 1993, AAAI.

[44]  E. M. Hartwell Boston , 1906 .

[45]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 1983 .

[46]  Pavel Brazdil,et al.  Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning , 1993 .

[47]  Qiang Yang,et al.  Intelligent planning - a decomposition and abstraction based approach , 1997, Artificial intelligence.

[48]  Thomas G. Dietterich What is machine learning? , 2020, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[49]  Richard E. Korf,et al.  Macro-Operators: A Weak Method for Learning , 1985, Artif. Intell..

[50]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Artificial Intelligence , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[51]  S. Ohlsson Restructuring revisited: I. Summary and critique of the Gestalt theory of problem solving. , 1984 .

[52]  Allen Newell,et al.  SOAR: An Architecture for General Intelligence , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[53]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[54]  John C. Reynolds,et al.  School of Computer Science , 1992 .