首页> 外文学位 >Planning, acting, and learning in incomplete domains.
【24h】

Planning, acting, and learning in incomplete domains.

机译:在不完整的领域中进行计划,行动和学习。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The engineering of complete planning domain descriptions is often very costly because of human error or lack of domain knowledge. Learning complete domain descriptions is also very challenging because many features are irrelevant to achieving the goals and data may be scarce. Given incomplete knowledge of their actions, agents can ignore the incompleteness, plan around it, ask questions of a domain expert, or learn through trial and error.;Our agent Goalie learns about the preconditions and effects of its incompletely-specified actions by monitoring the environment state. In conjunction with the plan failure explanations generated by its planner DeFault, Goalie diagnoses past and future action failures. DeFault computes failure explanations for each action and state in the plan and counts the number of incomplete domain interpretations wherein failure will occur. The question-asking strategies employed by our extended Goalie agent using these conjunctive normal form-based plan failure explanations are goal-directed and attempt to approach always successful execution while asking the fewest questions possible. In sum, Goalie: (i) interleaves acting, planning, and question-asking; (ii) synthesizes plans that avoid execution failure due to ignorance of the domain model; (iii) uses these plans to identify relevant (goal-directed) questions; (iv) passively learns about the domain model during execution to improve later replanning attempts; (v) and employs various targeted (goal-directed) strategies to ask questions (actively learn).;Our planner DeFault is the first to reason about a domain's incompleteness to avoid potential plan failure. We show that DeFault performs best by counting prime implicants (failure diagnoses) rather than propositional models. Further, we show that by reasoning about incompleteness in planning (as opposed to ignoring it), Goalie fails and replans less often, and executes fewer actions. Finally, we show that goal-directed knowledge acquisition---prioritizing questions based on plan failure diagnoses---leads to fewer questions, lower overall planning and replanning time, and higher success rates than approaches that naively ask many questions or learn by trial and error.
机译:由于人为错误或缺乏领域知识,完整规划领域描述的工程通常非常昂贵。学习完整的域描述也非常具有挑战性,因为许多功能与实现目标无关,并且数据可能很少。给定有关其操作的不完整知识后,代理可以忽略不完整,围绕它进行计划,咨询领域专家或通过试错来学习。;我们的代理人Goalie通过监视未完成的特定行为来了解先决条件和结果。环境状态。结合计划人员DeFault生成的计划失败说明,Goalie可以诊断过去和将来的操作失败。 DeFault为计划中的每个操作和状态计算故障解释,并计算发生故障的不完整域解释的数量。我们扩展的守门员特工使用这些基于正态结合的计划失败的解释所采用的提问策略是针对目标的,并尝试在询问尽可能少的问题的同时始终执行成功。总之,守门员:(i)交织表演,计划和提问; (ii)综合计划,以避免由于领域模型的无知而导致执行失败; (iii)使用这些计划来确定相关的(目标导向)问题; (iv)在执行过程中被动地了解域模型,以改进以后的重新计划尝试; (v),并采用各种针对性(目标导向)的策略来提出问题(积极学习)。;我们的计划者DeFault率先提出有关域不完整的原因,以避免可能的计划失败。我们通过计算主要蕴含量(故障诊断)而不是命题模型,证明DeFault的性能最佳。此外,我们表明,通过推理计划中的不完整性(而不是忽略它),守门员失败和重新计划的频率降低,执行的动作也更少。最后,我们证明,与天真的提出很多问题或通过试验学习的方法相比,基于目标的知识获取(基于计划失败诊断对问题进行优先排序)导致的问题更少,总体计划和重新计划的时间更少,成功率更高和错误。

著录项

  • 作者

    Weber, Christopher H.;

  • 作者单位

    Utah State University.;

  • 授予单位 Utah State University.;
  • 学科 Artificial Intelligence.;Computer Science.
  • 学位 M.S.
  • 年度 2012
  • 页码 59 p.
  • 总页数 59
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号