12/1/4 to 11/30/87

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION PROJECT ADMINISTRATION DATA SHEET ,/- (R5895-0A0) Fl ORIGINAL REVISION NO. G-36-617 Project No. GTRI/{ila( DATE 2 / 22 / 85 Project Director: Dr. J. L. Kolodner School/XXX Tcs Sponsor: U. S. Army Research Office Research Triangle Park, NC Type Agreement: SFRC DAAG29-85-K-0023 Award Period: From 12/1/4 To 11/30/87 (Performance) 1/30/88 (Reports) Sponsor Amount: This Change Total to Date Estimated: $ 214,753 $ 214,753 Funded: $ 64,248 $ 64,248 Cost Sharing Amount: $ None Cost Sharing No: N/A Title: The Role of Experience in Common Sense and Expert Problem Solving ADMINISTRATIVE DATA OCA Contact William F. Brown x - 4820 1) Sponsor Technical Contact: 2) Sponsor Admin/Contractual Matters: Dr. Jagdish Chandra Mr. T. A. Bryant U. S. Army Research Office ONR RR P. O. Box 12211 Georgia Tech Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Defense Priority Rating: None shown Military Security Classification: Unclassified (or) Company/Industrial Proprietary: N/A RESTRICTIONS See Attached Gov' t. Supplemental Information Sheet for Additional Requirements. Travel: Foreign travel must have prior approval - Contact OCA in each case. Domestic travel requires sponsor approval where total will exceed greater of $500 or 125% of approved proposal budget category. Equipment: Title vests with ,GIT; however, prior Government approval would be required since no equipment was included in the proposal budget. COMMENTS: COPIES TO: Sponsor I.D. No. 02.102.001.85.008 Project Director Procurement/EES Supply Services GTRI Research Administrative Network Research Security Services Library Research Property Management Reports Coordinator (OCA) Project File Accounting Research Communications (2) Other A. Jones FORM OCA 4:383 ;EORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SPONSORED PROJECT TERMINATION/CLOSEOUT SHEET Date 4/6/88 'roject No. G-36-617 School/1W ICS ncludee- Subproject No. (s) N/A roject Director(s) Dr. J. L. Kolodner GTRC/G1Tx ponsor U. S. Army Research Office/Research Triangle Park, NC itle The Role of Experience in Common Sense and Expert Prohlem Snlving ffective Completion Date:_ /n/R 7 (Performance) 1/30/87 (Reports) rant/Contract Closeout Actions Remaining: None Ell Final Invoice or Copy of Last Invoice Serving as Final Release and Assignment Final Report of Inventions and/or Subcontract: Patent and Subcontract Questionnaire sent to Project Director Ell Govt. Property Inventory & Related Certificate Classified Material Certificate Other mtinues Project No. G-36-617 Continued by Project No. TIES TO: vject Director Facilities Management - ERB search Administrative Network Library search Property Management . GTRC counting Project File ocurement/GTRI Supply Services Other search Security Services ports Coordinator (OCA) ogram Administration Division ntract Support Division 21697-MA PROGRESS REPORT TWENTY COPIES REQUIRED 1. ARO PROPOSAL NUMBER: 21697-MA 2. PERIOD COVERED BY REPORT: 1 January 1985 - 30 June 1985 3. TITLE OF PROPOSAL: The Role of Experience in Common-Sense & Expert Problem Solving 4. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: DAAG29-85-K-0023 5. NAME OF INSTITUTION: Georgia Institute of Technology G. AUTHORS OF REPORT: Janet L. Kolodner 7. LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED OR PUBLISHED UNDER ARO SPONSORSHIP DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD, INCLUDING JOURNAL REFERENCES: A COMPUTER MODEL OF CASE-BASED REASONING IN PROBLEM SOLVING: An Investigation in the Domain of Dispute Mediation, by Robert Simpson ARGUMENTS OF PERSUASION: Two Papers, by Katia Sycara-Cyranski USING EXPERIENCE AS A GUIDE FOR PROBLEM SOLVING, Janet L. Kolodner, Robert L. Simpson 8. SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL SUPPORTED BY THIS PROJECT AND DEGREES AWARDED DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD: Janet Kolodner Katia Sycara Robert L. Simpson, who was only indirectly supported by this grant, received his Ph.D. in June, 1985. His dissertation, entitled A COMPUTER MODEL OF CASE-BASED REASONING IN PROBLEM SOLVING: An Investigation in the Domain of Dispute Mediation, is enclosed. His support included computer time and advisory time. Janet L. Kolodner Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332 21697-MA (Page 2 of 5) BRIEF OUTLINE OF RESEARCH FINDINGS Our research has taken too directions in the past 6 months. First is the elaboration of our model of experience in problem solving and its implementation in a computer system that resolves disputes. Second is an investigation of strategies for the kinds of persuasion that are necessary in dispute mediation. Several attached papers report this work. Since the paper reporting the first investigation is quite long we summarize it below. The second is summarized in the attached papers. Our MEDIATOR project resolves common sense disputes based on experience solving previous similar problems. By common-sense disputes, we refer to the kinds people run into from day to day. Children quar- relling over possession of objects, colleagues needing the same resource at the same time, and disputes encountered in reading the newspapers are just a few of the kinds of disputes the program deals with. The MEDIATOR program, developed by Bob Simpson, begins with a semantic memory detailing the kinds of disputes it might encounter (e.g., physical, economic, and political) and a set of common mediation plans (e.g., one cuts the other chooses, split the difference, divide by parts). As it resolves disputes, it builds up an episodic memory or- ganized by the concepts in its semantic memory. During processing, it first attempts recourse to previous experience to resolve a problem, and if no applicable experience is available, it uses default means (based on exhaustive search of alternatives) to resolve the problem. It learns, based on feedback, about the decisions it has made. If feedback is positive, it reinforces its belief that a particular type of plan is appropriate to a particular problem by storing the case and the plan - 1 - 21697-MA (Page 3 of 5) used to resolve it. When it encounters later problems with features similar to one it has stored in memory, it will be reminded of that case and check to see if the plan used there was appropriate to its new problem. A positive experience may thus provide a shortcut in later problem solving. If feedback is negative, the MEDIATOR tracks down its error, fixes the knowledge that was responsible, and attempts resolution of the problem a second time based on the new knowledge learned during feedback and the corrected knowledge that caused the previous error. When it finally resolves the problem satisfactorily, and stores the en- tire case in memory , , later reminding of that case will (1) allow the problem solver to resolve a later similar problem without making the same mistakes a second time or (2) help the problem solver to figure out what went wrong when a similar failure occurs in the future. There are several novel aspects to the MEDIATOR project. First, its model of problem solving includes not only the planning part of problem solving, but also problem understanding and failure resolution based on feedback. Case-based reasoning can facilitate reasoning during any of these phases of problem solving. Second, the analogical transfer process is "demand driven", where demand is provided by the task the problem solver is carrying out. When the problem solver is trying to classify a problem, it is the problem classification of the previous case that it investigates for applicability to the new problem. When it is attempting to derive a skeletal plan, it is the abstract plan from the previous case that it checks for applicability. Third, the MEDIATOR has a well-articulated long term memory for experience. Problem solving experiences presented to the MEDIATOR are in- - 2 - 21697-MA (Page 4 of 5) dexed in memory by those features which differentiate it from other experiences stored there. The memory organization is based on MOPs. A fourth novel feature of the MEDIATOR is in its use of the same problem solving model to both solve domain problems (in this case, to resolve disputes) and to track down and fix failures in reasoning. It is able to do this because it treats both types of problems as first, classification problems, and then, plan instantiation problems. In solving domain problem, it thus seeks to classify disputes it encounters according to whether they are physical, economic, or political disputes during the understanding phase of problem solving. Each of these dispute types "knows" which types of plans are commonly useful to its resolution. Thus, classification allows pointers to potentially applicable canned plans, which must then be refined for the particular problem. During failure resolution, the MEDIATOR treats the failure it has encountered as its new problem. During the understanding phase of failure resolution (explaining the failure), it attempts to classify the error (as, e.g., a classification error, an elaboration error, a particular kind of elaboration error, a plan refinement error). Each of those error classifications has remediation plans associated with it to fix the faulty knowledge or faulty reasoning rule. It thus fixes its errors by instantiating and refining a plan appropriate to the kind of error it encountered (e.g., one can fix elaboration errors by using an alternate elaboration rule or by asking the value of a feature from the user). In the same way previous experiences can provide shortcuts in problem solving, previous failures can provide shortcuts in error recovery (e.g., the orange dispute above). This method of failure recovery has poten- - 3 - 21697-MA (Page 5 of 5) tial in domains where the types of failures that may be encountered and ways of recovering from each can be specified. This fourth feature is the least developed and more investigation is still needed. It is one of our areas for future investigation. In January, 1985,, Dr. Joseph Psotka visted our lab to discuss our projects.

Load more