Grounded discovery of symbols as concept-language pairs

In human designer usage, symbols have a rich semantics, grounded on experience, which permits flexible usage - e.g. design ideation is improved by meanings triggered by contrastive words. In computational usage however, symbols are syntactic tokens whose semantics is mostly left to the implementation, resulting in brittle failures in many knowledge-based systems. Here we ask if one may define symbols in computational design as {label,meaning} pairs, as opposed to merely the label. We consider three questions that must be answered to bootstrap a symbol learning process: (a) which concepts are most relevant in a given domain, (b) how to define the semantics of such symbols, and (c) how to learn labels for these so as to form a grounded symbol. We propose that relevant symbols may be discovered by learning patterns of functional viability. The stable patterns are information-conserving codes, also called chunks in cognitive science, which relate to the process of acquiring expertise in humans. Regions of a design space that contain functionally superior designs can be mapped to a lower-dimensional manifold; the inter-relations of the design variables discovered thus constitute the chunks. Using these as the initial semantics for symbols, we show how the system can acquire labels for them by communicating with human designers. We demonstrate the first steps in this process in our baby designer approach, by learning two early grounded symbols, tight and loose.

[1]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[2]  J. Zlatev What's in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language , 2005 .

[3]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification , 1973 .

[4]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Conceptual spaces - the geometry of thought , 2000 .

[5]  Wolfgang Beitz,et al.  Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach , 1984 .

[6]  Jean M. Mandler,et al.  A summary of The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought , 2004 .

[7]  Ashok K. Goel,et al.  Analogical recognition of shape and structure in design drawings , 2008, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[8]  Jeffrey Mark Siskind,et al.  Grounding the Lexical Semantics of Verbs in Visual Perception using Force Dynamics and Event Logic , 1999, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[9]  Radford M. Neal Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2007, Technometrics.

[10]  S. Vereza Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought , 2001 .

[11]  Balasubramanian Chandrasekaran,et al.  Representing function: Relating functional representation and functional modeling research streams , 2005, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[12]  A. Dong The enactment of design through language , 2007 .

[13]  Amitabha Mukerjee,et al.  Learning Concepts and Language for a Baby Designer , 2010, DCC.

[14]  Ronald W. Langacker,et al.  An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Development of a Functional Basis for Design , 2000 .

[16]  M. Casasola,et al.  Six-month-old infants' categorization of containment spatial relations. , 2003, Child development.

[17]  Mark D. Gross,et al.  Design as exploring constraints , 1985 .

[18]  Amitabha Mukerjee,et al.  Using Symbol Emergence to Discover Multi-Lingual Translations in Design , 2010 .

[19]  T. Taura,et al.  Concept blending and dissimilarity: factors for creative concept generation process , 2009 .

[20]  Amitabha Mukerjee,et al.  Multi-objective functional analysis for product portfolio optimization , 2009, 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making(MCDM).

[21]  John H. Holland,et al.  Escaping brittleness: the possibilities of general-purpose learning algorithms applied to parallel rule-based systems , 1995 .

[22]  Ronald W. Langacker,et al.  Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction , 2008 .

[23]  Simon Szykman,et al.  A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts , 2002 .

[24]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Expertise in Design: an overview , 2004 .

[25]  Stevan Harnad The Symbol Grounding Problem , 1999, ArXiv.

[26]  Robert Stone,et al.  A Natural Language to Component Term Methodology: Towards a Form Based Concept Generation Tool , 2009 .

[27]  S T Roweis,et al.  Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. , 2000, Science.

[28]  Ashok K. Goel,et al.  Towards Design Learning Environments - I: Exploring How Devices Work , 1996, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[29]  S. Mohammed,et al.  Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design collaboration? , 2007 .

[30]  Hh Henri Achten,et al.  Do word graphs stimulate design , 2005 .

[31]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[32]  John R. Dixon,et al.  Guiding conceptual design through behavioral reasoning , 1994 .

[33]  Amitabha Mukerjee,et al.  THE BIRTH OF SYMBOLS IN DESIGN , 2009 .

[34]  Paul Bloom Intention, history, and artifact concepts , 1996, Cognition.

[35]  P. Grünwald The Minimum Description Length Principle (Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning) , 2007 .

[36]  D. Roy Learning Visually Grounded Words and Syntax of Natural Spoken Language , 2000 .

[37]  Lawrence K. Saul,et al.  Think Globally, Fit Locally: Unsupervised Learning of Low Dimensional Manifold , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[38]  L. H. Shu,et al.  Using language as related stimuli for concept generation , 2007, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[39]  Kees Dorst,et al.  Design Problems and Design Paradoxes , 2006, Design Issues.

[40]  Ram D. Sriram,et al.  The Role of Knowledge in Next-generation Product Development Systems , 2001, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[41]  Virginia Teller Review of Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition by Daniel Jurafsky and James H. Martin. Prentice Hall 2000. , 2000 .

[42]  Angelo Cangelosi,et al.  From robotic toil to symbolic theft: Grounding transfer from entry-level to higher-level categories1 , 2000, Connect. Sci..

[43]  Peter H. Salus,et al.  Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism , 1987 .

[44]  Daniel E. Whitney,et al.  Quasi-Static Assembly of Compliantly Supported Rigid Parts , 1982 .

[45]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design , 1990, AI Mag..

[46]  Amitabha Mukerjee,et al.  Discovering implicit constraints in design , 2011, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[47]  Simon Szykman,et al.  Enhancing Virtual Product Representations for Advanced Design Repository Systems , 2005, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[48]  Amitabha Mukerjee,et al.  Non-linear Dimensionality Reduction by Locally Linear Isomaps , 2004, ICONIP.

[49]  Ram D. Sriram,et al.  The Representation of Function in Computer-Based Design , 1999 .

[50]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Learning from design experience in an agent-based design system , 2004 .

[51]  James H. Martin,et al.  Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition , 2000 .

[52]  D. Schoen The Reflective Practitioner , 1983 .

[53]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design Optimization Problem Reformulation Using Singular Value Decomposition , 2009 .

[54]  Willemien Visser,et al.  Designing as Construction of Representations: A Dynamic Viewpoint in Cognitive Design Research , 2006, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[55]  Lucienne Blessing,et al.  Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks , 2003 .

[56]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Product family design knowledge representation, aggregation, reuse, and analysis , 2007, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[57]  L. Steels Evolving grounded communication for robots , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.