Machine Intelligence 7

Machine Intelligence 7

See also: Robert Kowalski. 1975. A Proof Procedure Using Connection Graphs. J. ACM 22, 4 (October 1975), 572-595.In B. Meltzer and D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 7. New York: Wiley, 167-194

Machine Intelligence 7

Machine Intelligence 7

Selected quotes:"The Science Research Council has been receiving an increasing number of applications for research support in the rather broad field with mathematical engineering and biological aspects which often goes under the general description Articial Intelligence (Al). The research support applied for is sufficient in volume, and in variety of discipline involved, to demand that a general view of the field be taken by the Council itself.""To supplement the important mass of specialist and detailed information available to the Science Research Council its Chairman decided to commission an independent report by someone outside the Al field but with substantial general experience of research work in multidisciplinary fields including fields with mathematical, engineering and biological aspects."-----"Most workers in Al research and in related elds confess to a pro nounced feeling of disappointment in what has been achieved in the past twenty-five years. Workers entered the feld around 1950, and even around 1960, with high hopes that are very far from having been realised in 1972. In no part of the field have the discoveries made so far produced the major impact that was then promised.""In the meantime, claims and predictions regarding the potential results of Al research had been publicised which went even farther than the expectations of the majority of workers in the field whose embarrassments have been added to by the lamentable failure of such inflated predictions.""These general statements are expanded in a little more detail in the rest of section 3, which has been influenced by the views of large numbers of people listed in section 1 but which like the whole of this report represents in the last analysis only the personal view of the author. Before going into such detail he is inclined, as a mathematician, to single out one rather general cause for the disappointments that have been experienced: failure to recognise the implications of the 'combinatorial explosion'."See also: BBC TV - June 1973 - Lighthill Controversy Debate at the Royal Institution with Professor Sir James Lighthill, Professor Donald Michie, Professor Richard Gregory and Professor John McCarthy.Also in Lighthill, J., Sutherland, N. S., Needham, R. M., Longuet-Higgins, H. C., and Michie, D. (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence: A Paper Symposium. Science Research Council of Great Britain.

"In this paper we describe some major new additions to the STRIPS robot problem-solving system. The first addition is a process for generalizing a plan produced by STRIPS so that problem-specific constants appearing in the plan are replaced by problem-independent parameters.The generalized plan, stored in a convenient format called a triangle table, has two important functions. The more obvious function is as a single macro action that can be used by STRIPS—either in whole or in part—during the solution of a subsequent problem. Perhaps less obviously, the generalized plan also plays a central part in the process that monitors the real-world execution of a plan, and allows the robot to react "intelligently" to unexpected consequences of actions.We conclude with a discussion of experiments with the system on several example problems."Artificial Intelligence 3:251-288

Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh University. This thesis is concerned with algorithms for generating generalisations-from experience. These algorithms are viewed as examples of the general concept of a hypothesis discovery system which, in its turn, is placed in a framework in which it is seen as one component in a multi-stage process which includes stages of hypothesis criticism or justification, data gathering and analysis and prediction. Formal and informal criteria, which should be satisfied by the discovered hypotheses are given. In particular, they should explain experience and be simple. The formal work uses the first-order predicate calculus. These criteria are applied to the case of hypotheses which are generalisations from experience. A formal definition of generalisation from experience, relative to a body of knowledge is developed and several syntactical simplicity measures are defined. This work uses many concepts taken from resolution theory (Robinson, 1965). We develop a set of formal criteria that must be satisfied by any hypothesis generated by an algorithm for producing generalisation from experience. The mathematics of generalisation is developed. In particular, in the case when there is no body of knowledge, it is shown that there is always a least general generalisation of any two clauses, in the generalisation ordering. (In resolution theory, a clause is an abbreviation for a disjunction of literals.) This least general generalisation is effectively obtainable. Some lattices induced by the generalisation ordering, in the case where there is no body of knowledge, are investigated. The formal set of criteria is investigated. It is shown that for a certain simplicity measure, and under the assumption that there is no body of knowledge, there always exist hypotheses which satisfy them. Generally, however, there is no algorithm which, given the sentences describing experience, will produce as output a hypothesis satisfying the formal criteria. These results persist for a wide range of other simplicity measures. However several useful cases for which algorithms are available are described, as are some general properties of the set of hypotheses which satisfy the criteria. Some connections with philosophy are discussed. It is shown that, with sufficiently large experience, in some cases, any hypothesis which satisfies the formal criteria is acceptable in the sense of Hintikka and Hilpinen (1966). The role of simplicity is further discussed. Some practical difficulties which arise because of Goodman's (1965) "grue" paradox of confirmation theory are presented. A variant of the formal criteria suggested by the work of Meltzer (1970) is discussed. This allows an effective method to be developed when this was not possible before. However, the possibility is countenanced that inconsistent hypotheses might be proposed by the discovery algorithm. The positive results on the existence of hypotheses satisfying the formal criteria are extended to include some simple types of knowledge. It is shown that they cannot be extended much further without changing the underlying simplicity ordering. A program which implements one of the decidable cases is described. It is used to find definitions in the game of noughts and crosses and in family relationships. An abstract study is made of the progression of hypothesis discovery methods through time. Some possible and some impossible behaviours of such methods are demonstrated. This work is an extension of that of Gold (1967) and Feldman (1970). The results are applied to the case of machines that discover generalisations. They are found to be markedly sensitive to the underlying simplicity ordering employed.

Three approaches to symbolic integration in the 1960's are described. The first, from artificial intelligence, led to Slagle's SAINT and to a large degree to Moses' SIN. The second, from algebraic manipulation, led to Manove's implementation and to Horowitz' and Tobey's reexamination of the Hermite algorithm for integrating rational functions. The third, from mathematics, led to Richardson's proof of the unsolvability of the problem for a class of functions and for Risch's decision procedure for the elementary functions. Generalizations of Risch's algorithm to a class of special functions and programs for solving differential equations and for finding the definite integral are also described.

Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.