Advantagesof Humans and Machines in the Building of Intelligent Systems Are 'Explained
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 201 337 IR .009 351 AUTHOR Hayes -Roth, Frederick: And Others TITLE 'Knowledge Acquisition, Knowledge Programming, arld Knowledge Refinement. INSTITUTION Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Rashington, D.C. EEPORT NO ISBN-0-8330-0195-7; Rand-R-2540-115F PUB,DATE May 80 GRANT MCS77'03273 NOTE 39p. AVAILABLE FROMRand Corporation, Main St., Santa Monica, 2A 90406 ($3.00). EDRS. PRICE HF01 Plus Postage._. PC Not Available from EDRS. -DESCRIPTORS *Artificial Intelligence; *Computers; Informatioa Theory; Man Machine Systems; .*Programing; Research Reports; Systems Development ABSTRACT. This report describes the principal findings and recommendations of a 2-year Rand research projedt on machine-aided knowledge acquisition an -discusses the transfer of expertise from humans to machines, as'weils the functions of planning, debugging', . knowledge .:efineient, andauton moos machine' learning. The relatiie .advantagesof humans and machines in the building of intelligent systems are 'explained. Background and guidance is provided for policymakers concerned with the research and development of machine-based learning systems'. The research method adoptel emphasized iterative refinement of knowledge in' response to actual experience; i.e., a machine's knowledge, was acquired initially from a human who provided enough concepts, constraints, and problem-solving heuristics to'' define some minimal level of performance. Sixty -,tap 'references are listed. (Author/FM) ************************************** -1**.i.*************************** * Reproduciiont supplied by -a: Ahe best that can be `made At' * frOm the origine_ .4.'zumente. ****.******4c*******101c.***,************oz******************************C: U.S, OE PAR.T. :#T Q,. ALT;, EOUCATiC ;It PiT,.f4FtV NAT Iew '17:11',07r-cy THIS °Dap ' .71, IV- P FORO. DUCED EXA,. :ROM THE PERSON Q. dt.c." ATtNG IT ?OiN7 IEW NIONS STATED DO ERRE- Nmt SENT,OFICI IONAL I rulE OP E2.1)CATION Pr., OR P c'2.e KNOWLEDC] 4CQ1ISITIO t;:(ISIOWLEDGE -PROGRAMMING, AND .KNC. INLEDGF VFINEMENT t?. PREPARED UNDER A GRANT FRI7)i, i4F4ATIONAL SCIENCE FU IDA.1:71ka'N ERICK HA 'ES t 1") P41._ --,(U_7-R, DAVID MAL 'AO 'PE=WF.Z1ON TO REPRODUCE THIS IN MICROFICHE ONLY 'AS 5 GRANTED BY T. Cockrell SANTA A MONIXIX 90406 "EL -T-r---IUCATIONAL RESOURCES 1A4--URNIATION CENTER (ERIC)." PREFACE This.Tep,ort describes .th Fncipal findings and recommendation:i of a two-year Rand research project on r..amine- aide;' knowledge acquiSition, st.Toorted by a grant fr-.7.7 e Intelligent Program Mathematical and Coiner Sciences Divisior_. National' Science '0=de:don. It 'discusses th.s.: transfer of e=ertise from humans cc -machines, as w-L_I as the functrit debuggi knowledge refinement, and autoriommEi =chine tt, the air--nrs ,atterrp: to explain the relative aik-E-annia. of :::.:,mares an c.. machinen the building intelligent systems. This_ 3irrt mo",..ltes. on striproach to .--Iyhrid systeins in which humans provide irrracaint. s and cnope wiith them in the iterative eValuatiori and reiin=errz-nf t1e olit;edge-Es.sed s7stmn_ The report provides background and :-,-aidan:7.2 for n:-.%,1,. ;makers concerned with de research and development of machane-based lea. -2Z.L.g. Fyste.rm, and it should be of interest to computer scientists, cognitive --psychnicgista..rid others interested 3 machine intelligence. During this project, the research .7.;1;:ored mat.f alternative approaches to machine-aided learning and con..:aidtvi Mar.thie nost prar7,:sir ftiture work is to translate human experw un frziial itntelligenn. program& then to refine the implementations iteratiwir--aE316icated by experience. at:a-approach blends machine capabilities with htm,:lini-texpertise in the generation ati::-iteratiye Improvement of intelligent system.. The report explains why the athm-s have the '17 explore ?his problem, describes how they are pursuing-e:eir-nnals, and ...classes the pra-c..vre.s to date. Because the stated task is very difficult, Rirf3to )as on177.been sc-rtithed; much remains to be done. Several computer programs 'nave nem. :.teveloc..A in the course .:Sthis-project by various combinations of the authors cillabot-ators. Mos,,,6,4t has imple- mented the, knowledgebrograrnming glos 1.1-,rt of his disserion research supervised by Hayes-Roth. Hayes-Roth and itLahr :eve implemend three differ- ent programs for representing and the ,..-_nowleclige of the.nrrts While these programs actually play the ;moderately well, the wrest fbr as lies in their alternative approaches talmrsgriedge7ep's....ciertation and control. Lenat has implemented in his program RLL some 4,,-r r.be restructuring knowl- edge discussed in ,Lenat, Hayes-Roth, and & 1979b). All of these programs. should be. considered l'undamentalli ei --pe-J:.-tmental and ephemeral; they serve primarily as "breadboards" for testing ot:..7.-ideas. In the future, they may 'give rise to additional experiments or more permanent arid extensive applied sys- tems. David J. Mostow is a doctoral candidate it .:;epartment of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, and a con:tat: t.. The Rand Corporation. iii SUMMARY The scientist who wants to understand and construct learning systems must first, refine "learning" and then develop a research method that eventually pro- duceslearning mechanisms. In contrast to conventional views of learning that focus on problems of feature selection, combination, arm weighting, the ,definition we have used in thii study emphasizes a continual growth and refinement of knowl- edge. From this point of view, a system learns by increasing the scope, precision, validity, and power of its current knowledge. That knowledge includes descriptions and models of the" environment, AB well as planning and problem-solving techniques for achieving goals. Learning requires the system to augment, generalize, special- ize, validate, and exploit the knowledge it possesses at any point in time. The research method adopted here emphasizes iterative refinement-of knowl- edge in response to actual experience. In this approach, a machine's knowledge is acquired initially from a human, who provides enough concepts, constraints, and problem-solving heuristics to define some minimal level of performance. We use semiautomatic methods to convert the initial knowledge into a working program. Then, when the initial program executes, we observe the resulting behaviors to diagnose problems and design knowledge refinements. Although this refinement process currently requires significant human contributions, we have formulated methods that may make it possible to reduce or eliminate much of that involve- ment. This report explains the cyclic roles of understanding, planning, and evaluation Wiring the development and extension of knowledge. A prerequisite for learning an initial base of knowledge. Most learning results.' from the constructive appli- cation, evaluation, and refinement.of that knowledge. By predicting probable conse- cniences of our actions and noticing unfulfilled expectations, we can isolate and. often quickly remedy weaknesses in existing knowledge. In this framework, a learning system must use existing knovAedprq to plan reasonable courses of action, carry those plans out, and then diagnose v,ie.,:;.7eases that explain observed failures or unexpected successes. The processes oc'ph/ndng, acting, and evaluation cooper- ate to produce new knowledge by refinin extending prior knowledge. The suggested approach is illustrated bhe following simple example: Let us suppose that an intelligent system has b.'en assigned to control a power generator. Its knowledge base describes the system's likely behaviors, sensor readings, and control mechanisins. These behavioral specifications then relate assumed situation conditions to optional control actions and their expected effects. For example, the knowledge base might describe, the relationships among several Valves, pumps, pipes, temperature gauges, and Control switches. Let us assume that rising temper- ii),,atures produce some undesirable situation D. A plan to Conmensate for rising temperatures indicated by sensor A might dictate turning, off valve B on C. This plan would be associated with a rationalization, i.e., a proof or informal argu- ment, establishing that when A indicates rising temperature, closing B on C will counteract the\undesirable consequence D. The proof might alSo establish addition- al expectations about corroborative sensor readings;side-effects produced by the B closure. Let us net appose that, subsequently,:actually occurs. We can now vi compare the assumptions and deductions in the rationalization with actual obser- vations of the current situation. We may find that all the assumptions remain true, but some deductions are falsified by data. In this case, we can identify the faulty inference rules as those whose premises are true but whose conclusions are false. Alternatively, we may find that some of the expected or pre-,upposed conditions do not obtain. In this case, too, we can identify the source of die faulty expectation. Once it has been identified, the fauLty rule becomes the su:_--ect of refinement. In refining a faulty inferential rule, a variety of heuristics may be used. Each potential change to existing knowledge reflects a new hypothesis about thebehav- ior of the modeled system or the effects of actions upon that system. These hypotrie- ses constitute the intelligent system's new knowledge. To illustrate any of these learning heuristics requires an actual