Advertisement

Machine Transformation of Advice Into a Heuristic Search Procedure

  • David Jack Mostow
Part of the Symbolic Computation book series (SYMBOLIC)

Abstract

A key problem in learning by being told is operationalization: the development of procedures to implement advice that is not directly executable by the learner, such as the advice “avoid taking points” in the card game hearts. One way to operationalize such advice is to reformulate it in terms of a general “weak method”, such as heuristic search. This chapter is a case study in the mechanical mapping of domain-specific problems onto general methods, using as a detailed example the derivation of a heuristic search procedure for the advice “avoid taking points.” The derivation consists of a series of problem transformations leading from the advice statement to an executable procedure. The operators used to perform these transformations are implemented in a program called FOO as domain-independent transformation rules that access a knowledge base of task domain concepts. Some of the rules construct a crude generate-andtest procedure; others improve it by deriving new heuristics based on domain knowledge and problem analysis. To test its generality, FOO was also used to operationalize a music composition task; many of the same rules proved applicable.

Keywords

Heuristic Search Search Procedure Choice Point Defense Advance Research Project Agency Partial Path 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balzer, R., and Goldman, N., “Principles of good software specification and their implications for specification languages,” Proc. Conf. Specifications Reliable Software, Boston, MA, pp. 58–67, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. Darlington, J., and Burstall, R. M., “A system which automatically improves programs,” Acta Informatica, Vol. 6, pp. 41–60, 1976.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Klahr, P., “Partial proofs and partial answers”, Technical Report P-6239, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1978, (Presented at 4th Workshop on Automated Deduction, University of Texas, Austin, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  4. Konolige, K., and Nilsson, N. J., “Multiple-agent planning systems,” AAAI80, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Stanford University, pp. 138–142, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. Lenat, D., and Harris, G, G., “Designing a rule system that searches for scientific discoveries,” Pattern-Directed Inference Systems, D. A. Waterman and F. Hayes-Roth (Eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 25–51, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. Lenat, D. B., Hayes-Roth, F., and Klahr, P., “Cognitive economy in artificial intelligence systems,” IJCAI-6, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 531–536, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Meehan, J., “CANTUS”, (Computer program to generate cantus firmus. Senior undergraduate honors project, Yale University).Google Scholar
  8. Moore, J., The design and evaluation of a knowledge net for Merlin, Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971.Google Scholar
  9. Mostow, D. J. Mechanical Transformation of Task Heuristics into Operational Procedures,Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1981, (Available as CMU-CS-81–113).Google Scholar
  10. Mostow, D. J. and F. Hayes-Roth, “Operationalizing heuristics: some AI methods for assisting AI programming,” IJCAI-5, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 601–609, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. Newell, A, A., “Heuristic programming: Ill-structured problems,” Progress in Operations Research, J. Aronofsky (Ed.), Wiley, New York, pp. 363–414, 1969.Google Scholar
  12. Newell, A., Shaw, J., and Simon. H. A. A., “Empirical explorations of the logic theory machine: A case study in heuristics,” Proceedings of the 1957 Western Joint Computer Conference, Western Joint Computer Conference, pp. 218–230, 1957, (Reprinted in E. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman (editors), Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, 1963 ).Google Scholar
  13. Newell, A., Shaw, J., and Simon, H. A., “Report on a general problem-solving program for a computer,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Processing, UNESCO, Paris, pp. 256–264, 1960.Google Scholar
  14. Sacerdoti, E. D., “Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spaces,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 5, pp. 115–135, 1974.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sacerdoti, E. D., A Structure for Plans and Behavior, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Salzer, F., and Schacter, C., Counterpoint in Composition: the Study of Voice Leading, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  17. Simon, H. A., “Artificial intelligence systems that understand,” IJCAI-5, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1059–1073, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. Tappel, S., “Some algorithm design methods,” AAA/80, Stanford University, pp. 64–67, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Jack Mostow
    • 1
  1. 1.USC Information Sciences InstituteUSA

Personalised recommendations