perm filename TALK.IBM[RDG,DBL]2 blob
sn#695614 filedate 1983-01-15 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00010 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002 ∂TO bmt@mit-mc 11:54 28-Oct-82
C00004 00003 Presentation to be given at IBM, 4-Nov-82
C00010 00004 Part II: Knowledge Acquisition
C00011 00005 Part III: Analogy
C00013 00006 Defn: from BGB & Duda82:
C00017 00007 (arbitrary) Task - PA to Yorktown Heights
C00019 00008 Consider first: Can I travel from my starting location, to my destination?
C00021 00009 Part II -- Knowledge Acquisition
C00022 00010 Presentation to be given at IBM, 4-Nov-82
C00028 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂TO bmt@mit-mc 11:54 28-Oct-82
[for Dr Griesmer:] Abstract
Presentation to be given at TJ Watson Research Center, IBM
4-Nov-82
Expert Systems, Knowledge Acquisition, and Analogy
This talk will describe various aspects of Expert Systems (ES). The first
section is an introduction -- to characterize what an ES is, and, using a
simple example, to give a sense of how an ES can operate. This section
concludes with a brief discussion on their strengths and deficiencies.
The second part of this talk focuses on one major weakness: the primary
bottle-neck of ES design, Knowledge Acquisition. After describing many of
the difficulties, I will outline some of the current proposed solutions.
The concluding third section sketches my preliminary thoughts on how
Analogy may be used during Knowledge Acquisition.
----
Dr Griesmer, Dr Hong, et al,
I would appreciate hearing your comments on the implied talk,
especially if you feel it would be inappropriate for this visit, or
for this audience.
Also, am I correct in aiming for a one hour presentation?
Thank you,
Russ
∂
Jim Griesmer called 2:43, 28-Oct-82, and spoke w/Jock
Abstract is ok, talk = 1 hour, including questions
Presentation to be given at IBM, 4-Nov-82
Expert Systems, Knowledge Acquisition, and Analogy
Overhead
[Selection of topic(s) - history]
Several iterations to decide how not to say things I did not want to say.
Had to abandon Ed's Rule for talks: [Never give talk for first time]
Outline:
[three interconnected areas]
ES, concentrating on
[Why better than "hand coded procedure", "Baysean systems"]
KA - difficulties, proposals
Analogy - my approach
Examples kept simple, to convey concepts.
If they are familiar, please interrupt
-----
Part I: Expert Systems
A. Pep Talk/Overview
0. Flavor of what ES is, and can do.
Ask how other approaches would work - return @ Conclusion of this part.
1. Ill defined
a) my defn
b) (from BGB & Duda82)
2. Further Characterization
3. List of Examples - diversity of domains
4. Focus - rule based
[not BB, or frame based, or ...]
B. Domain: Simplied Travel Agent
0. Obvious domain, given hassles of getting here
[cheaper to stay ... like:
"to England, via bombay" ... done by Winograd, Bobrow: GUS]
<Can say whether you can get there, but not how.>
1. This not "expert"
But shows features
2. Types of facts
[World facts, vs Control Facts]
Base DB facts,
Rules
Definitions, [e.g. CanReach]
Heuristics (e.g. nearest city [most are meta level:fewest stops, ...]
Meta-Facts / Meta-Rules
C. Example Problem
1. (arbitrary) Task - San Jose to NY
2. [Here, given many flights, graphed out.]
<<<Describe goals, sub-goals, ... frontier>>>
3. [Show back-chaining; using...]
4. Comments
(i) Note uniform system --
Simple, declarative nature
(ii) This made system
easy to understand,
simple to modify, extend, debug
(iii) [below] System can be
adapted to other extensions/applications
D. Next - more complexities:
0. To tell which flights, record [by Concatenating]
1. Change CanReach's "defn"
a) include Bus from SJ to SF
b) Extend to: PA to Yorktown Heights
Heuristic: Find close by major city [and, if > 1, ...]
2. Can add further constraints, to change behavior
+** Given Conflict Resolution Strategy: find first ***
[needs additional facts - Knowledge is Power]
most convenient [= most flights], so use Big airlines: United, ...
fastest, [those w/most fast planes, fewest stops, ...]
cheapest, [e.g. Try World, PeopleExpress first]
<<<HeadQuarter for Delta is Dallas, so try them first.>>>
NOTE: did NOT change inference engine - still general PC unify/resolution ...
3. Meta Level assertions -
Direction of search, based on "chuminess of city"
[Here, for efficiency. Other times, to avoid infinite loops, or ...]
[Still same "resolution", enhanced to consider meta level ...]
E. Conclusion
1. Showed simple system, easy to change
- both inferences, goals, efficiency
2. Recall challenge - how to make these changes with other types of systems.
3. What of Explanation
(i) This example trivial -- few rules, too shallow, not interactive
(Still could say why not this route, or ..., pointing to rule.
+ can answer why it found this flight
i.e. what assumptions it made, as explicit
(ii) Scale up - show Mycin example - real rules.
[Show how explanation "fall out"]
4. mycin points out difficulty of enterring KB,
input is really vague, and heuristic...
Leads to KA...
------
Part II: Knowledge Acquisition
A. Def'n of KA
B. Problem
0. At each section
C. Proposed solutions
0. To each case in turn
Common sense facts
World complex
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.
Part III: Analogy
[back up, to discuss analogy. Then back to solving this problem]
A. Two areas of Research
1. Adequate def'n of Analogy
As in "What's in an Analogy" (w/MRB)
2. Running System,
Using formalism
3. Discuss latter
B. Def'n of my task:
1. Use of Analogy for KA - not Problem Solving, ...
2. Why chosen? - well constrained, ...
C. Example 1
0. Simple -- "automated copy & edit"
1. "VM is like BM, except ..."
2. Context
3. Sample Rules, facts, ...
4. Desired conclusions
D. Example 2
0. More elaborate
1. "Renal system is like Electrical System, in that both are circuits"
...
E. Research methodology, time table, ...
------
Final comments:
Credit: MRG and DBL all around; and to TGD & JSB for KA
Questions?
Defn: from BGB & Duda82:
A computer Program that provides expert-level solutions to important problems
and is:
Heuristic: reasons w/judgement knowledge as well as formal knowledge
Transparent: probides explanations of its line of reasoning and answers
queries about is knowledge
Flexible: integrates new knowledge incrementally.
General Character:
Often deals will difficult problems,
Usually w/uncertain, or errorful, data
Refinement:
[like that article, we'll focus on Rule Based systems.]
-----
Comparison with
(i) Simple Procedures
(ii) Baysean Systems
[Will describe single example - which pins down some aspects.
Still true elsewhere, for BBs, or Frame Based Systems, ...]
Inference scheme is simple, "driven" by the facts
Facts are MODULAR - making the system
quick to build
easy to (debug) modify
explanatory (i.e. it can explain its conclusions)
Declarative - so facts can be used for other purposes.
Back-chaining -
So can be "Hierarchical" -- can narrow down conclusions...
Meta - is easy, can even use same inference...
Ex: Mycin
(or Kinship, or Symbolic Integration [NO: their field], or
Circuit Diagnosis [NO: DART], ...)
(arbitrary) Task - PA to Yorktown Heights
Find flight ?F s.t.
(Flight ?F PA YorktownHeights)
Static, Domain level Facts
(Flight American#28 SJC Chicago)
(Airline American#28 American)
; No - really for both flights!! (Cost American#28 $109)
(Periodicity American#28 Daily)
(Times American#28 9:28AM 3:15PM)
(Flight American#446 SJC Leguardia)
(Airline American#446 American)
(Periodicity American#446 Daily)
(Times American#446 4:00PM 6:59PM)
***** NY→WPB *****
5/XI Eastern #883 NY-Leg WPB [$129]
Fri 2:20PM 4:55PM
***** WPB→Boston *****
8/XI Eastern #1608 WPB Atlanta [$99]
Mon 9:35AM 11:04AM
Eastern #690 Atlanta Boston
12:23PM 2:40PM
***** Boston→SJ *****
10/XI American #315 Boston Dallas [$169] <15D>
Wed 5:46PM 8:50PM
American #507 Dallas SJC <15D>
9:35PM 11:02PM
-----
$754 for
SJC → NY on 3/XI,
NY → SJC on 5/XI
(Flight American
Consider first: Can I travel from my starting location, to my destination?
[later issues of what is that path,
and then more complex]
Rules:
Base-CanReach:
∀ $From, $To, $F. (Flight $F $From $To) => (CanReach $From $To)
Transitivity-CanReach:
∀ A, B, C. (CanReach A B) & (CanReach B C) => (CanReach A C)
[could use 2nd order Transitive(CanReach)]
-----
MetaRules:
IF ( (TryingToAchieve (CanReach $A $B)) & (LightlyTravelled $A) )
THEN "SubGoal from departure point, $A"
[i.e. find those (CanReach $A <to>) first,
(using (Flight <f1> $A <to>) )
then worry about (CanReach <to> $B). ]
That is, use
Transitivity-CanReach-1 rather than Transitivity-CanReach, where
Transitivity-CanReach-1:
∀ F, A, B, C. (Flight F A B) & (CanReach B C) => (CanReach A C)
-----
Reciprically,
IF ( (TryingToAchieve (CanReach $A $B)) & (LightlyTravelled $B) )
THEN "SubGoal from destination, $B"
That is, use
Transitivity-CanReach-2 rather than Transitivity-CanReach, where
Transitivity-CanReach-2:
∀ F, A, B, C. (CanReach A B) & (Flight F B C) => (CanReach A C)
Part II -- Knowledge Acquisition
This is main bottleneck.
Why? (present here several possibilities - credit to Tom D and Jim B)
... Experts have not explicated facts (why else apprentiseship)
Usually work by examplars, not rules (or other hard causal...)
Much "compiled in" - like driving a car
....
Part III -- Analogy
Corollary: Analogy will help.
First, consider what I mean here by analogy:
not as reasoning, per se, but as way of inputting "data"
Presentation to be given at IBM, 4-Nov-82
*** OverView of Analogy ***
Outline
Intro/Motivation
[Why analogy] Analogies used all the time
[Why paper] No one has formalized what is going on
[What is paper] NOT: how description of how to use an analogy;
rather, what it means to use an analogy ...
is a formalizaion of what it is -- i.e. not code, ...
[Outline of talk]
[Meta Note] Represents research in progress.
∃ still many unanswered questions -- this just provides some of
vocabulary needed to address them.
*** this is important, to keep audience interested ***
Framework of an analogy?
From facts, assert Analogous(A B ...)
From Analogous(A B...), and F1(A B), deduce some F2(A B)
Ex: VM like BM => VM is a disease,
EC like Water Flow => Expect some resouviour -- battery, (or do diagnosis...)
[Specific subcases:
Using f1(B), deduce f1'(A), where f1 and f1' are related.
Usually weakened to *Conjecture* new proposals ... ]
Now consider what goes into these Analogous propositions:
>2 args
At least 2 - the analogues
[in what form? We'll disuss later]
[Case for exactly 2 args]
Std usage
Winston, Carbonell, ...
Ex: Fred & George; Washington:1::Lincoln:?; ...
Must be something else - the context, or "answer" (mapping, theory, ...), ...
Two digression here:
(Surface) Linguistic?, or deep
Why is binary Analogous so seductive?
(before asking for other args,)
What are "analogue args"?
[Other args are function of this -- e.g. mapping over SOMETHING]
Cannot be objects themselves, ... rather ... a description of it
--- leads to reformulation
(1) Analogy = Common Theory
3 arg = that theory, which each analogue instantiates
Ex: Biological tree and corporate hierarchy -- each is a tree (in CS sense)
or Renal system & Electrical System -- each is a circuit, ...
Useful for
1. extracting relevant features of A and B
(and ok at putting parts into correspondence)
2. establishing new facts about "new" analogue (in canonical use)
Ex: diagnosis for RS, based on ES
3. can compile inventory - so given A and B can find common C readily
4. Combining analogies, to ...
<others, pertaining to analogy qua object for study - comparison, ...>
Problems
1. No explicit mapping, of differences
Ex: "after substituting..." or ...
2. ...
(2) Analogy = Mapping
3rd arg = mapping function.
Ex: shakespeare plays, ...
Useful for
1. explicating differences
Problems
1. explicating commonalities
2. building inventory
----
Solution - elements of both
[See Polya - sibling of "generalization" hierarchy]
Explicate both commonality and differences
Remaining issues
*** here gets fuzzier ***
Symbol-symbol mapping inappropriate - need sentence to sentence
now need to constrain this -- i.e. recursive...
Reformulation -- the initial represention of the analogue(s) may not
explicate the connection -- may need to find some other description
[e.g. circle : sphere obvious in polar coordiates [r=constant, others
arbitrary], but hard in rectangular... See polya for class of problems]
Learn that wire go both ways, as conduits in the body do -- and so an "input"
to a circuit could drive something else to zero.
-----
My work-
Use of analogy for KA
...
---
Reformulation