An Architecture and Language for the Integrated Learning of Demonstrations

POIROT is an integration framework and reasoning control system that combines the products of a variety of machine learning mechanisms in order to learn and perform complex web services workflows, given a single demonstration example. POIROT’s extensible multistrategy learning approach to developing workflow knowledge is organized around a central hypothesis blackboard and representation language for sharing proposed task model generalizations. It learns hierarchical task models from semantic traces of usergenerated service transaction sequences. POIROT’s learners or hypothesis formers develop, as testable hypotheses, generalizations of these workflow traces by inferring task order dependencies, user goals, and the decision criteria for selecting or prioritizing subtasks and service parameters. Hypothesis evaluators, guided by POIROT’s meta-control component, plan and execute experiments to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses extracted from these learning products. Hypotheses and analyses of hypotheses are represented on the blackboard in the language LTML, which builds on both OWL-S and PDDL.

[1]  Hector Muñoz-Avila,et al.  SHOP: Simple Hierarchical Ordered Planner , 1999, IJCAI.

[2]  David Leake,et al.  Planning to Learn , 1995 .

[3]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  The Effect of Rule Use on the Utility of Explanation-Based Learning , 1989, IJCAI.

[4]  David B. Leake,et al.  Goal-driven learning , 1995 .

[5]  Michael T. Cox Loose Coupling of Failure Explanation and Repair : Using Learning Goals to Sequence Learning Methods , 2007 .

[6]  Ashwin Ram,et al.  Introspective Multistrategy Learning: On the Construction of Learning Strategies , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Craig A. Knoblock Automatically Generating Abstractions for Planning , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  A Semantic Web Services Architecture , 2005, IEEE Internet Comput..

[9]  Michael T. Cox Loose Coupling of Failure Explanarion and Repair: Using Learning Goals to Sequence Learning Models , 1997, ICCBR.

[10]  O. G. Selfridge,et al.  Pandemonium: a paradigm for learning , 1988 .

[11]  Jude W. Shavlik,et al.  Learning Ensembles of First-Order Clauses for Recall-Precision Curves: A Case Study in Biomedical Information Extraction , 2004, ILP.

[12]  Ashwin Ram,et al.  Interacting Learning-Goals: Treating Learning as a Planning Task , 1994, EWCBR.

[13]  David A. Cohn,et al.  Improving generalization with active learning , 1994, Machine Learning.

[14]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  Diverse ensembles for active learning , 2004, ICML.

[15]  James A. Hendler,et al.  A Validation-Structure-Based Theory of Plan Modification and Reuse , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Manuela Veloso Learning by analogical reasoning in general problem-solving , 1992 .

[17]  David Leake,et al.  Goal-Directed Learning: a Decision-Theoretic Model for Deciding What to Learn Next , 1995 .

[18]  Glenn A. Iba,et al.  A heuristic approach to the discovery of macro-operators , 2004, Machine Learning.

[19]  Marie desJardins Goal-Directed Learning: A Decision-Theoretic Model for Deciding What to Learn Next , 1992 .

[20]  J. Shavlik Acquiring Recursive and Iterative Concepts with Explanation-Based Learning , 1990, Machine Learning.

[21]  Robert P. Goldman,et al.  Recognizing Plan/Goal Abandonment , 2003, IJCAI.

[22]  Pat Langley,et al.  Learning Teleoreactive Logic Programs from Problem Solving , 2005, ILP.

[23]  Ryszard S. Michalski,et al.  Inferential Theory of Learning: Developing Foundations for Multistrategy Learning , 1992 .

[24]  Anupriya Ankolekar,et al.  The DAML-S Virtual Machine , 2003, International Semantic Web Conference.

[25]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Programming by demonstration: a machine learning approach , 2001 .

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

[27]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Bringing Semantics to Web Services with OWL-S , 2007, World Wide Web.

[28]  Mark H. Burstein Dynamic invocation of semantic Web services that use unfamiliar ontologies , 2004, IEEE Intelligent Systems.