Reasoning Visually about Spatial Interactions

This paper is concerned with how diagrams can be used for reasoning about spatial interactions of objects. We describe a computational approach that emulates the human capability of predicting interactions of simple objects depicted in two dimensional diagrams. Three core aspects of this approach are a visual representation scheme that has symbolic and imaginal parts, the use of visual processes to manipulate the imaglnat part and to extract spatial information, and visual cases that encode experiential knowledge and play a central role in the generation of spatial inferences. These aspects are described and the approach is illustrated with an example. Then we show that reasoning with images is an emerging and promising area of investigation by discussing computational and cognitive research on imagery. 1 Introduction Humans quite often make use of spatial information implicit in diagrams to make inferences. For example, anyone famlliar with the operation of gears will be able to solve the problem posed in Figure 1 by imagining the rotary motion of gear1 being transmitted to the rod through gear2, resulting in the horizontal translation of the rod until it hits the wall. In such situations humans reason about spatial interactions not only by using conceptual knowledge, but also by extracting constraints on such interactions from a perceived image. This integrated use of visual knowledge (about spatial configurations) from the diagram and conceptual knowledge (such as the rigidity or plasticity of objects involved) is a very interesting phenomenon, in this paper we illustrate a computational approach that emulates this capability for solving simple motion prediction problems. The class of problems we address is the following: given a two dimensional diagram of the spatial configuration of a set of objects, one or more Initial motions of objects and relevant conceptual information about them, predict the subsequent dynamics of the configuration. Figure 2 shows a typical example.

[1]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[2]  S. Ullman Visual routines , 1984, Cognition.

[3]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Qualitative Kinematics: A Framework , 1987, IJCAI.

[4]  David Chapman,et al.  Intermediate vision: Architecture, implementation, and use☆ , 1992 .

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

[6]  P. Langley,et al.  Computational Models of Scientific Discovery and Theory Formation , 1990 .

[7]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Abstract Planning and Perceptual Chunks: Elements of Expertise in Geometry , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  David Chapman,et al.  Intermediate Vision: Architecture, Implementation, and Use , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  Bernard Meltzer,et al.  Analogical Representations of Naive Physics , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Higher-level vision , 1990 .

[11]  Z. Pylyshyn The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge. , 1981 .

[12]  C SchankRoger,et al.  Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People , 1983 .

[13]  J. Barwise,et al.  Visual information and valid reasoning , 1991 .

[14]  R. Finke,et al.  Principles of mental imagery , 1989 .

[15]  Brian V. Funt,et al.  WHISPER: A Problem-Solving System Utilizing Diagrams and a Parallel Processing Retina , 1977, IJCAI.

[16]  B. Chandrasekaran,et al.  Integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in visual reasoning , 1991, [1991] Proceedings. The Second Annual Conference on AI, Simulation and Planning in High Autonomy Systems.

[17]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  The MEDIATOR: Analysis of an Early Case-Based Problem Solver , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  S. Kosslyn The medium and the message in mental imagery: A theory. , 1981 .