1 / 29

Learning Relational Rules for Goal Decomposition

Learning Relational Rules for Goal Decomposition. Prasad Tadepalli Oregon State University Chandra Reddy IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Supported by Office of Naval Research. A Critique of Current Research. Most work is confined to learning in isolation

perry-velasquez
Télécharger la présentation

Learning Relational Rules for Goal Decomposition

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. Learning Relational Rules for Goal Decomposition Prasad Tadepalli Oregon State University Chandra Reddy IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Supported by Office of Naval Research Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  2. A Critique of Current Research • Most work is confined to learning in isolation • Predominantly employs propositional representations • The learner is passive and has to learn from random examples • The role of prior knowledge in learning is minimal Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  3. Our Approach • Learning in the context of hierarchical problem solving • The goals, states and actions are represented relationally • Active Learning: Learner can ask questions, pose problems to itself, and solve them • Declarative prior knowledge guides and speeds up learning Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  4. Air Traffic Control (ATC) Task(Ackerman and Kanfer study) Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  5. Goal Decomposition Rules (D-rules) • D-rules decompose goals into subgoals. goal:land(?plane) condition:plane-at(?plane, ?loc) & level(L3, ?loc) subgoals:move(?plane, L2)}; move(?plane, L1); land1(?plane) • Problems are solved by recursive decomposition of goals to subgoals • Control knowledge guides the selection of appropriate decomposition rules. Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  6. Domain theory for ATC task • Domain Axioms: • can-land-short(?p) :- type(?p propeller) • can-land-short(?p) : - type(?p DC10) & wind-speed(low) & runway-cond(dry) • Primitive Operators: • jump(?cursor-from, ?cursor-to), • short-deposit(?plane, ?runway), • long-deposit(?plane, ?runway), • select(?loc, ?plane) Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  7. Learning from Demonstration • Input Examples: • State: at(p1, 10), type(p1, propeller), fuel(p1, 5),cursor-loc(4), free(1), free(2),…, free(9), free(11),…, free(15), runway-cond(wet), wind-speed(high), wind-dir(south) • Goal: land-plane(p1) • Solution: jump(4, 10), select(10,p1), jump(10,14), short-deposit(p1,R2) • Output: underlying D-rules Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  8. Generalizing Examples • Examples are inductively generalized: • Examples to D-rules • Example goal D-rule Goal • Initial state Condition • Literals in other states Subgoals • Least General Generalization (lgg) X lgg H Problem: Size of lgg grows exponentially with the number of examples. Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  9. Learning from Queries • Use queries to prevent the exponential growth of the lgg: • (Reddy and Tadepalli, 1997) Non-recursive, single-predicate Horn programs are learnable from queries and examples. • Prune each literal in the lgg and ask a membership query (a question) to confirm that the result is not overgeneral. Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  10. Need for queries D Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  11. Need for queries x D Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  12. Need for queries x lgg D Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  13. Need for queries x D target Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  14. Need for queries overgeneral x D Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  15. Need for queries x D Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  16. Using Prior Knowledge • Explanation-Based Pruning: Remove literals that don't play a causal role in the plan e.g., free(1), free(2), ...etc. • Abstraction by Forward Chaining: can-land-short(?p) :- type(?p propeller) Helps learn a more general rule. • Learning subgoal order: Subgoal literals are maintained as a sequence of sets of literals. A set is refined into a sequence of smaller sets using multiple examples. Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  17. Learning Multiple D-Rules • Maintain a list of d-rules for each goal. • Combine a new example x with the first d-rule hi for which lgg(x,hi) is not over-general • Reduce the result and replace hi Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  18. Results on learning from demonstration Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  19. Learning from Exercises • Supplying solved training examples is too demanding for the teacher. • Solving problems from scratch is computationally hard. • A compromise solution: learning from exercises. • Exercises are helpful intermediate subproblems that help solve the main problems. • Solving easier subproblems makes it possible to solve more difficult problems. Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  20. Difficulty Levels in ATC Domain Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  21. Solving Exercises • Use previously learned d-rules as operators . • Iterative-deepening DFS to find short rules. • Generalization is done as before. Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  22. Query Answering by Testing • Generate test problems {InitialState, Goal} that match the d-rule. • Use the decomposition that the d-rule suggests, and solve the problems • If some problem cannot be solved the rule is over-general. Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  23. Results on learning from exercises • 14 d-rules Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  24. Conclusions • It is possible to learn useful problem-solving strategies in expressive representations. • Prior knowledge can be put to good use in learning. • Queries can be implemented approximately using heuristic techniques. • Learning from demonstration and learning from exercises make different tradeoffs with respect to learning and reasoning. Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  25. Electronic Arts Learning for Training Environments(Ron Metoyer) • Task Training • Sports • Military Boston Dynamics Inc. Who creates the training content? Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  26. Research Challenges • Learning must be on-line. Must learn quickly, since users can only give a few examples. • Extension to more complex strategy languages that include concurrency, partial observability, real-time execution, multiple agents, e.g., ConGolog • Provide a predictable model of generalization. • Allow learning from demonstrations, reinforcement, advice, and hints e.g., improving or learning to select between strategies. Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  27. Vehicle Routing & Product Delivery Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  28. Learning Challenges • Very large number of states and actions • Stochastic demands by customers and shops • Multiple agents (trucks, truck companies, shops, distribution centers) • Partial observability • Hierarchical decision making • Significant real-world impact Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

  29. ICML Workshop onRelational Reinforcement Learning Paper Deadline: April 2 Check ICML website Symposium on Reasoning and Learning

More Related