1 / 32

Artificial Intelligence and Lisp #9

Reasoning about Actions. Artificial Intelligence and Lisp #9. Registration: 50 students Number of: lab2a lab2b lab3a lab3b ------------------------- Reg. Downloads 45 42 18 8 Orphan downloads 3 2 1 0

baylee
Download Presentation

Artificial Intelligence and Lisp #9

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Reasoning about Actions Artificial Intelligence and Lisp #9

  2. Registration: 50 students Number of: lab2a lab2b lab3a lab3b ------------------------- Reg. Downloads 45 42 18 8 Orphan downloads 3 2 1 0 Lab completed 37 14 10 1 Incomplete upload 0 0 0 Other information: Notice that two lectures have been rescheduled! Please check the schedule on the official (university) webpage for the course. Lab statistics 2009-11-02

  3. Repeat: Strengths and weaknesses of state-space-based action planning • Strength: systematic algorithms exist • Strength: complexity results exist for some restricted cases, and some of them are computationally tractable • Strength: progressive planning integrates well with prediction, which is needed in many cognitive-robotics applications • Strength and weakness: actions with arguments must (and often, can) be converted to variable-free form, large size • Weakness: expressivity is insufficient for many practical situations • Weakness: computational properties are not always good enough in practice for large problems • Use of logic-based methods is a way of obtaining higher expressivity • Use of constraint-based methods often obtains better results for very large planning problems • These approaches will be addressed in the next three lectures

  4. Example of Scenario that is Unsuitable forState-Space-based Planning • Scenario with a mobile robot and the action of the robot moving from one place to another • The feasibility of the movement action depends on the floorplan, for example, whether the robot has to pass doorways, whether the door is open or closed, locked or not, etc • In principle it is possible to do state-space planning in such a scenario by defining a state containing all the possible relevant aspects of the scenario, but it is inconvenient • It is more practical to describe the scenario using a set of propositions (= statements), and to bring such statements into the planning process if and when they are needed.

  5. Purpose of Using Logicfor Reasoning about Actions • Specify current state of the world using logic formulas • Specify the immediate effects of actions using logic formulas • Specify indirect effects of actions and other, similar information for the world using logic formulas • Specify policies and goals using logic formulas • Use well-defined operations on logic formulas for deriving conclusions, identifying plans for achieving goals, etc • This is worthwhile if one obtains better expressivity and/or better computational methods

  6. Predicates (revised and extended from before) • [H t f v] the feature f has the value v at time t • [P t a] the action a is performable at time t • [G t a] the agent attempts action a at time t • [D t t+1 a] the action a is actually performed from time t to time t+1 • The predicate D can be generalized to allow actions with extended duration • The predicate symbols are abbreviations for Holds, Performable, Go (or Goal), and Do or Done • These are intended for use both about the past and about the future in the agent's world

  7. Actions and Plans • [P t a] the action a is performable at time t • [G t a] the agent attempts action a at time t • [D t t+1 a] the action a is actually performed from time t to time t+1 • The action argument in these is an action term • An action term may be a verb with its arguments, for example [pour glass4 mug3] • The sequential composition of action terms is an action term, e.g. [seq [pour g4 m3][pour m3 g7]] • Conditional expressions and repetition may also be used, but they are a later step for the logic • Composite action terms can be used in plans, and as scripts within the agent (e.g. precond advise), more...

  8. Examples of Action Laws • [P t [fill g b]] <-> [H t (subst-in g) empty] • [D t-1 t [fill g b]] -> [H t (subst-in g) b] • [P t [pour g1 g2]] <-> [H t (subst-in g2) empty] • & (not [H t (subst-in g1) empty]) • Compare the previous notation (scripts): [Do .t [pour .fr .to]] = [if [and [H- .t (substance-in: .to) empty] (not [H- .t (substance-in: .fr) empty ])] [coact [H! .t (substance-in: .to) (cv (substance-in: .fr)) ] [H! .t (substance-in: .fr) empty ]] ]

  9. Execution of a plan = composite action • If a is an elementary action, [G t a] holds, [P t a] holds, and [G t a'] does not hold for any other elementary action a', then [D t t+1 a] holds • If [G t [seq a1 a2 …]] holds, [P t a] holds, and [G t a] does not hold for any other elementary action a', then [D t t+1 a1] and [G t+1 [seq a2 …]] hold • [G t [seq]] (empty sequence) has no effect, and [seq] is not an elementary action in the above • Leave the definition of concurrent actions for another time • The plan [seq a1 a2 …] is performable iff all the successive steps shown above are performable (actually it's a bit more complicated)

  10. Now time to bring in logic • Recall: the purpose of bringing in logic in the context of actions and plans, is to have systematic and well-founded methods for manipulation of formulas like the ones shown on the previous slides

  11. From Decision Tree to Logic Formula [a? [b? [c? red green] [c? blue white]] [b? [c? white red] [c? blue green]]] (a&b&c&red&-green&-blue&-white) v (a&b&-c&-red&green&-blue&-white) v (a&-b&c&-red&-green&blue&-white) … If you know a&b&c then conclude red If you know b&red conclude c v -c (trivial) If you know green conclude -c If you know white conclude (-b&-c) v (b&c) which can be expressed as b <-> c

  12. Entailment [a? [b? [c? red green] [c? blue white]] [b? [c? white red] [c? blue green]]] F = (a&b&c&red&-green&-blue&-white) v (a&b&-c&-red&green&-blue&-white) v (a&-b&c&-red&-green&blue&-white) … If you know white conclude (-b&-c) v (b&c) which can be expressed as b <-> c F, white |= (-b&-c) v (b&c) The symbol |= is pronounced “entails” (“innebär”) It is a relation between (sets of) formulas, not a symbol within a formula!

  13. Definition of entailment • For an entailment statement A, B, … |= G • An interpretation is an assignment of truthvalues to the proposition symbols in A, B, … G • The models for A is the set of those interpretations where the value of A is true. It is written Mod[A]. (More precisely, the classical models). • The models for a set of formulas is the intersection of their model sets • The entailment statement expresses that Mod[{A, B, …}]  Mod[G]

  14. Entailment – example of definition [a? [b? [c? red green] [c? blue white]] [b? [c? white red] [c? blue green]]] F = (a&b&c&red&-green&-blue&-white) v (a&b&-c&-red&green&-blue&-white) v (a&-b&c&-red&-green&blue&-white) … If you know white conclude (-b&-c) v (b&c) Which can be expressed as b <-> c F, white |= (-b&-c) v (b&c) The symbol |= is pronounced “entails” (“innebär”) It is a relation between (sets of) formulas, not a symbol within a formula!

  15. Model sets [a? [b? [c? red green] [c? blue white]] [b? [c? white red] [c? blue green]]] F = (a & b & c & red & -green & -blue & -white) v (a & b & -c & -red & green & -blue & -white) v (a & -b & c & -red & -green & blue & -white) … F, a&white |= (-b&-c) v (b&c) Mod[a&b&c&red& …] = {{a:T,b:T,c:T,red:T,green:F,blue:F, white:F}} Mod[F]= {{a:T,b:F,c:T,red:T,green:F,blue:F,white:F},...} Mod[a&white] = {{a:T,white:T, (any combination of the others)}...} Mod[(-b&-c) v (b&c)] = {{b:F,c:F, (any combination of the others)}, {b:T,c:T, (any combination of the others)} }

  16. Simplified formulation [a? [b? [c? red green] [c? blue white]] [b? [c? white red] [c? blue green]]] F = (a&b&c&red&-green&-blue&-white) v (a&b&-c&-red&green&-blue&-white) v (a&-b&c&-red&-green&blue&-white) … Fd = (a&b&c&red) v (a&b&-c&green) v (a&-b&c&-red&blue) … F2 = -(red&green v red&blue v red&white v green&blue v green&white v blue&white) It is “easy” to see that Mod[F] = Mod[Fd,F2] and the latter formulation is much more compact

  17. Equivalence between formulas [a? [b? [c? red green] [c? blue white]] [b? [c? white red] [c? blue green]]] Fd = (a&b&c&red) v (a&b&-c&green) v (a&-b&c&-red&blue) v ... Fc = (-a v -b v -c v red) & (-a v -b v c v green) & … One can see that Mod[Fc] = Mod[Fd] since each combination of a, b and c allows exactly one color The first conjunct in Fc can be rewritten as ((-a v -b v -c) v red) (-(a & b & c) v red) (a & b & c) -> red These formulas are equivalent – they have the same set of models! Fc – conjunctive normal form, Fd – disjunctive normal form

  18. Inference Fc = (-a v -b v -c v red) & (-a v -b v c v green) & … F2 = -(red&green v red&blue v red&white v green&blue v green&white v blue&white) F2 can be equivalently replaced by F3 = -(red&green) & -(red&blue) & ... And in turn by F4 = (-red v -green) & (-red v -blue) & ... Both Fc and F4 can be replaced by the set of their conjuncts (= components of the and-expression) for the purpose of inference Now suppose we have Fc, F4, and the proposition white We observed above F, white |= (-b&-c) v (b&c) Try go obtain this using inference in a strict way!

  19. Details of proof [a? [b? [c? red green] [c? blue white]] [b? [c? white red] [c? blue green]]] white -a v -b v -c v red | -red -a v -b v c v green | -a v -b v -c -a v b v -c v blue | a v -b v c -a v b v c v white | -green a v -b v -c v white | -a v -b v c a v -b v c v red | a v b v c a v b v -c v blue | -blue a v b v c v green | -a v b v -c -white v -red | a v b v -c -white v -green | -b v c -white v -blue (and more...) | b v -c | (-b v c) & (b v -c) | (b -> c) & (c -> b) | b <-> c

  20. Resolution Rule (Simple Case) • The resolution rule is an inference rule • It applies to a combination of two propositions each of which must be a clause, i.e. a disjunctions of literals, where a literal is an atomic proposition or the negation of one (no other subexpressions) • Given (a v B) and (-a v C), it forms (B v C) where both B and C may be zero, one or more literals • Conversion from or to logic formulas that are not clauses must be done using other rules

  21. Inference Operator • Let A,B, … and G be clauses • If G can be obtained from A,B,... using repeated application of the resolution operator, then we write A,B,... |- G and say that A,B,... lead to G • The same notation is used for other choices of inference rules as well • Recall that if Mod[A,B,...]  Mod[G] then we say that A,B,... entails G • Completeness result (for propositional logic): A,B,... |- G if and only if A,B,... |= G • One can view |- as an implementation of |=

  22. From here to reasoning about actions • Now we have seen how logical inference can be done by systematic manipulation of logic formulas • Three things are needed in order to apply this to reasoning about actions: • Already done: Replace single propositional symbols (a, b, etc) by composite expressions involving a predicate and its arguments, for example [H time feature value] • Extend the definition of models: not merely an assignment of truth-values to proposition symbols • Generalize the resolution operator to the larger reportoire of logic formulas

  23. Definition of Models for Actions, I • Need to define interpretation and evaluation • An interpretation for a logic of actions consists of a development (~ episode) Dev + a mapping Act from elementary action terms to actions + an invocation log Inv • An action is here a set of pairs of partial states, as in the previous lecture • An invocation log here a set of pairs of timepoints and action terms. Each pair specifies an attempt to begin executing the action term at that timepoint • A formula [H t f v] is true in an interpretation <Dev Act Inv> iff [: f v] is a member of Dev(t), meaning that v holds as the value of f • Must also define D and related predicates, later slide

  24. Repeat: State-space Ontology of Actions • The structures in lab2 implement this ontology • Purpose: unified treatment for several ways of representing the preconditions and effects of actions • It is also the basis for planning algorithms • Start from a set Fea of features and an assignment of a range for each feature • Consider the space of all feature states Sta; each of them is a mapping from features to values, and there may be restrictions on what combinations of values are possible • A complete feature state assigns a value to all members of Fea, a partial feature state does not. Complete is the default. • A development Dev is a mapping from integers from 0 and up, to feature states. (Similar to episodes in Leonardo)

  25. Example 1 • The set of models for • [H t lightning true] → [H t+1 thunder true] • consists of those interpretations where, in the • development, each state containing • [: lightning true] • is followed by a state containing • [: thunder true] • Notice that only the Dev part of the interpretation is used in this simple example; the other two parts may be empty sets, or whatever else

  26. Definition of Models for Actions, II • Consider an interpretation <Dev Act Inv> • A formula [P t a] is true iff pre  Dev(t) for some member <pre post> of Act(a), meaning a is performable at time t • A formula [D t t+1 a] is true in the interpretation iff pre  Dev(t) and post  Dev(t+1) for some member <pre post> of Act(a), meaning the action is done then • A formula [G t a] is true in the interpretation iff the pair of t and a is a member of Inv • A formula [D s t a] where s ≠ t-1 is false, so actions with extended duration are not admitted (in the present, simplified version of the formalism) • Repeat: If A is a set of propositions, then Mod[A] is the set of interpretations where all members of A are true.

  27. Interpretations • In order to merely characterize what has happened during an episode, it is sufficient to use the predicates H and D, and interpretations can have the form <Dev Act {}> • In order to characterize the intention or the plan of an agent, and the execution of that plan, use all of H, D, P and G, and make use of interpretations of the form <Dev Act Int> with non-empty Int

  28. Return to Action Laws • [P t [fill g b]] <-> [H t (subst-in g) empty] • [D t-1 t [fill g b]] -> [H t (subst-in g) b] • [G t a] & [P t a] -> [D t t+1 a] (simplified) • [H 14 (subst-in glass4) empty] • [G 14 [fill glass4 beer]] • We expect to be able to obtain the consequence • [H 15 (subst-in glass4) beer]

  29. Rewrite as • 1 -[P t [fill g b]] v [H t (subst-in g) empty] • 2 [P t [fill g b]] v -[H t (subst-in g) empty] • 3 -[D t-1 t [fill g b]] v [H t (subst-in g) b] • 4 -[G t a] v -[P t a] v [D t t+1 a] • 5 [H 14 (subst-in glass4) empty] • 6 [G 14 [fill glass4 beer]] • Consequences using the resolution rule + instantiation: • 7 -[P 14 [fill glass4 beer]] v [D 14 15 [fill glass4 beer]] from 4,6 • 8 -[H 14 (subst-in glass4) empty] v [D 14 15 [fill glass4 beer]] from 2,7 • 9 [D 14 15 [fill glass4 beer]] from 5,8 • 10 [H 15 (subst-in glass4) beer] from 3,9 • Instantiation = replacement of variable by some expression • Resolution and instantiation can be combined: unification

  30. Just a complicated way of doing a simulation?? • In this simple example, yes, but the same method also works in cases that require more expressivity, like: • If you don't know whether the agent's intention is to pour beer or juice into the glass • If you just know that the intention concerns the glass that is in the robot's hand, without knowing its identifier • If the intention is to fill all the glasses that are on a tray (after some generalization of the above) • and many other cases • The important thing is that both the current state of the environment, its expected future states, actions, and intentions for actions are expressed in a uniform manner and can be combined using the inference operator

  31. Revisit the Premises • [P t [fill g b]] <-> [H t (subst-in g) empty] • [D t-1 t [fill g b]] -> [H t (subst-in g) b] • [G t a] & [P t a] -> [D t t+1 a] (simplified) • [H 14 (subst-in glass4) empty] • [G 14 [fill glass4 beer]] • We expect to be able to obtain the consequence • [H 15 (subst-in glass4) beer] • Notice: Domain specific (= Application specific),Ontology based,Current situation • The full set of 'red' and 'blue' premises can be made to characterize the Act part of the interpretation completely (details next time)

  32. Reasoning about Plans – two cases • Given the logical rules, action laws, initial state of the world, and one or more intentions by the agent – predict future states of the world: done by inference for obtaining logic formulas that refer to later timepoints • rules, initstate, plan |= effects • Given the logical rules, action laws, initial state of the world, and an action term expressing a goal for the agent – obtain a plan (an intention) that will achieve that goal • rules, initstate, plan |= goal • where red marks the desired result in both cases • Planning is therefore an inverse problem wrt inference. In formal logic this operation is called abduction. This will be the main topic of the next lecture.

More Related