Minds and Machines

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 317–351

The Frame Problem: An AI Fairy Tale

  • Kevin B. Korb
Article

Abstract

I analyze the frame problem and its relation to other epistemological problems for artificial intelligence, such as the problem of induction, the qualification problem and the "general" AI problem. I dispute the claim that extensions to logic (default logic and circumscriptive logic) will ever offer a viable way out of the problem. In the discussion it will become clear that the original frame problem is really a fairy tale: as originally presented, and as tools for its solution are circumscribed by Pat Hayes, the problem is entertaining, but incapable of resolution. The solution to the frame problem becomes available, and even apparent, when we remove artificial restrictions on its treatment and understand the interrelation between the frame problem and the many other problems for artificial epistemology. I present the solution to the frame problem: an adequate theory and method for the machine induction of causal structure. Whereas this solution is clearly satisfactory in principle, and in practice real progress has been made in recent years in its application, its ultimate implementation is in prospect only for future generations of AI researchers.

artificial intelligence frame problem causal induction machine learning logicism Bayesian learning MML 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brooks, R. (1991), ‘Intelligence without Representation’, Artificial Intelligence, 47, pp 139–159.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, F.M. (ed.) (1987), The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  3. Buck, R.C. (1963), ‘Do Reflexive Predictions Pose Special Problems for the Social Scientist?’, Philosophy of Science, 30, pp 359–374.Google Scholar
  4. Carnap, R. (1962), Logical Foundations of Probability, second edition, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  5. Cherniak, C. (1986), Minimal Rationality, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dennett, D. (1984), ‘Cognitive Wheels: The Frame Problem of Artificial Intelligence’, in C. Hookaway (ed.) Minds, Machines and Evolution, Cambridge University. Reprinted in Pylyshyn (1987).Google Scholar
  7. Dietrich, E. and Fields, C. (1996), ‘The Role of the Frame Problem in Fodor's Modularity Thesis: A Case Study of Rationalist Cognitive Science’, in K. M. Ford and Z. W Pylyshyn, (eds.) The Robot's Dilemma Revisited: Norwood, N. J.: Ablex, pp 9–24.Google Scholar
  8. Dreyfus, H. and Dreyfus, S. (1987), ‘How to Stop Worrying about the Frame Problem even though it's Computationally Insoluble’, in Z. W. Pylyshyn (ed), The Robot's Dilemma Norwood, N. J.: Ablex, pp. 95–111.Google Scholar
  9. Fetzer, J. (1991b), ‘The Frame Problem: Artificial Intelligence Meets David Hume’, In K. M. Ford and P. J Hayes (eds.) Reasoning Agents in a Dynamic World Greenwich, CT: JAI Press pp. 55–69.Google Scholar
  10. Fetzer, J. (1991b), ‘Artificial Intelligence Meets David Hume: A Response to Patrick Hayes’, in K. M Ford and P. J. Hayes (eds.) Reasoning Agents in a Dynamic World Greenwich, CT: JAI Press pp. 77–85.Google Scholar
  11. Fetzer, J. (1993), ‘Philosophy Unframed’, Psycoloquy 4,(33).Google Scholar
  12. Ford, K.M. and Hayes, P.J. (eds.) (1991a), Reasoning Agents in a Dynamic World: The Frame Problem. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ford, K.M. and Hayes, P.J. (1991b), ‘Framing the Problem’, in K. M Ford and P. J Hayes (eds.) Reasoning Agents in a Dynamic World Greenwich, CT: JAI Press pp. ix-xiv.Google Scholar
  14. Ford, K.M. and Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1996), The Robot's Dilemma Revisited, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
  15. Freeman, W. (1992), ‘Framing Is a Dynamic Process’, Psycoloquy, 3(62).Google Scholar
  16. Georgeff, M.P. and Wallace, C.S. (1984) ‘A General Selection Criterion for Inductive Inference’, European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 6, pp. 473–482.Google Scholar
  17. Gillies, D. (1990), ‘The Turing-Good Weight of Evidence Function and Popper's Measure of the Severity of a Test’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41, pp 143–146.Google Scholar
  18. Gillies, D. (1996), Artificial Intelligence and Scientific Method, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldberg, D.E. (1989), Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning), Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Grice, H.P. (1975), ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J.P. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58) New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hanks, S. and D. McDermott (1986), ‘Default Reasoning, Nonmonotonic Logic, and the Frame Problem’, in T. Kehler, S. Rosenschein, R. Filman and P. Patel-Schneider (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 328–333, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  22. Harnad, S. (1993), ‘Problems, Problems: The Frame Problem as a Symptom of the Symbol Grounding Problem’, Psycoloquy 4(34). http://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnard/psyc.htmlGoogle Scholar
  23. Haugeland, J. (1987), ‘An Overview of the Frame Problem’, in Z.W. Pylyshyn The Robot's Dilemma Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp. 77–93.Google Scholar
  24. Hayes, P. (1987), ‘What the Frame Problem Is and Isn't’, in Z. W. Pylyshyn (ed), The Robot's Dilemma Norwood, N. J.: Ablex, pp. 123–137.Google Scholar
  25. Hayes, P. (1991), ‘Commentary on’ The Frame Problem: Artificial Intelligence Meets David Hume', in in K. M Ford and P. J Hayes (eds.) Reasoning Agents in a Dynamic World Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 71–76.Google Scholar
  26. Hayes, P. and Ford, K. M. (1993), ‘Modeling our Adaptive Intelligence, Not God's’, Psycoloquy, 4(42). http://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnard/psyc.htmlGoogle Scholar
  27. Heckerman, D. and Geiger, D. (1995), ‘Likelihoods and Priors for Learning Bayesian Networks’, Neural Information Processing Systems 1995 Workshop on Learning in Bayesian Networks and Other Graphical Models, December 1995, Veil, Colorado.Google Scholar
  28. Heckerman, D., Mamdani, A. and Wellman, M. P. (1995), ‘Real-world Applications of Bayesian Networks’, Communications of the ACM 38 (March), p 24–26.Google Scholar
  29. Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (1993), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, second edition, Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  30. Hume, D. (1748/1975) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge, revised by P. H. Nidditch, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  31. Israel, D. (1985), ‘A Short Companion to the Naive Physics Manifesto’, in J.R. Hobbs and R.C. Moore (eds.) Formal Theories of the Commonsense World, Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. pp. 427–447.Google Scholar
  32. Korb, K.B. (1995), ‘Inductive Learning and Defeasible Inference’, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 7, pp. 291–324.Google Scholar
  33. Korb, K.B. (1998), ‘Probabilistic Causal Structure’, forthcoming in H. Sankey (ed.), Causation and Natural Laws: Australasian Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Korb, K.B. and Wallace, C. S. (1997) ‘In Search of the Philosopher's Stone: Remarks on Humphreys and Freedman's Critique of Causal Discovery’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48, pp. 543–553.Google Scholar
  35. Langley, P. Simon, H. A. and Bradshaw, G. L. (1990), ‘Heuristics for Empirical Discovery,’ in Shavlik and Diettrich (eds.), Readings in Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  36. Langley, P. Simon, H. A. Bradshaw, G. L. and Zytow, J. M. (1987), Scientific Discovery, MIT.Google Scholar
  37. McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. J. (1969), ‘Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence’, in B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 4, pp. 463–502, Edinburgh University Press. Reprinted in M.L. Ginsberg (ed.) Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 26–45, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  38. McDermott, D. (1987a), ‘We've Been Framed: Or, Why AI Is Innocent of the Frame Problem’, in Z. W. Pylyshyn (ed), The Robot's Dilemma Norwood, N. J.: Ablex, pp. 113–122.Google Scholar
  39. McDermott, D. (1987b), ‘AI, Logic and the Frame Problem’, in F. M. Brown The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 105–118.Google Scholar
  40. McDermott, D. (1987c), ‘A Critique of Pure Reason’, Computational Intelligence 3, pp. 151–160.Google Scholar
  41. Mitchell, T.M. (1977), ‘Version Spaces: An Approach to Rule Revision during Rule Induction’, 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 305–310.Google Scholar
  42. Mitchell, T.M. (1978), Version Spaces: An Approach to Concept Learning. Technical Report STAN-CS-78–711, Computer Science Dept., Stanford University (Ph.D. dissertation).Google Scholar
  43. Muggleton, 5. (1990), Inductive Acquisition of Expert Knowledge Workingham, England: Addison-Wesley (Turing Institute Press).Google Scholar
  44. Muggleton, S. (ed.) (1992), Inductive Logic Programming, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Muggleton, S. and Feng, C. (1992), ‘Efficient Induction of Logic Programs’, in S Muggleton (ed.), Inductive Logic Programming,) Academic Press. pp. 281–298.Google Scholar
  46. Nutter, J.T. (1991), ‘Focus of Attention, Context, and the Frame Problem’, in in K. M. Ford and P. J. Hayes (eds.) Reasoning Agents in a Dynamic World Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. pp. 171–188.Google Scholar
  47. Oliver, J. Dowe, D. and Wallace, C. S. (1992), ‘Inferring Decision Graphs using the Minimum Message Length Principle’, Proceedings of the 1992 Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hobart, Tasmania, pp. 361–367, World Scientific.Google Scholar
  48. Oliver, J. and Hand, D. (1995) Introduction to Minimum Encoding Inference. Technical Report 95/205, Dept. of Computer Science, Monash University.Google Scholar
  49. Pylyshyn, Z.W. (ed.) (1987), The Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
  50. Quinlan, J.R. (1990), ‘Learning Logical Definitions from Relations’, Machine Learning 5, pp 239–266.Google Scholar
  51. Quinlan, J. R. (1993), C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  52. Reichenbach, H. (1949), The Theory of Probability, second edition, translated by E. H. Hutton and M. Reichenbach, Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  53. Reiter, R. (1978), ‘On Reasoning by Default’, Proceedings of Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, Urbana, Illinois, pp. 210–218.Google Scholar
  54. Reiter, R. (1980), ‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 81–132.Google Scholar
  55. Reiter, R., (1987), ‘Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Annual Review of Computer Science 2, pp. 147–186.Google Scholar
  56. Robinson, J.A. (1965), ‘A Machine-oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle’, Journal of the ACM 12, pp. 23–41.Google Scholar
  57. Rumelhart, D. E. and McClelland, J. (1986), Parallel Distributed Processing, volume 1, MIT.Google Scholar
  58. Salmon, W.C. (1967), The Foundations of Scientific Inference, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  59. Salmon, W. C. (1971), Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  60. Schaffer, C. (1994), ‘A Conservation Law for Generalization Performance’, Proceedings of the 1994 International Conference on Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  61. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  62. Simon, H. (1994), ‘Literary Criticism: A Cognitive Approach’, in G. Guzeldere and S. Franchi (eds.), Stanford Humanities Review Special Supplement: Bridging the Gap, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  63. Solomonoff, R. (1964) ‘A Formal Theory of Inductive Inference, I and II,’ Information and Control 7, 1–22 and 224–254.Google Scholar
  64. Sperber, D. Premack, D. and Premack, A. J. (eds.), (1995), Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  65. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. and Schemes, R. (1993), Causation, Prediction, and Search, New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  66. Thorndike, E. L. (1911), Animal Intelligence, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  67. Wallace, C. S. (1995) Multiple Factor Analysis by MML Estimation. Technical Report 95/218, Dept. Computer Science, Monash University.Google Scholar
  68. Wallace C. S. and Boulton D. M. (1968) ‘An Information Measure for Classification’, Computer Journal 11, 185–194.Google Scholar
  69. Wallace, C. S. and Freeman, P. R. (1987), ‘Estimation and Inference by Compact Coding’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 49, pp 240–252.Google Scholar
  70. Wallace, C. S. and Freeman, P. R. (1992), ‘Single-factor analysis by minimum message length estimation’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 54, pp. 195–209.Google Scholar
  71. Wallace, C. S. and Korb, K. B. (forthcoming), ‘A Study of Causal Discovery by MML Sampling,’ forthcoming in M. Slater (ed.), Causal Models and Intelligent Data Analysis, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  72. Wallace, C. S. Korb, K. B. and Dai, H. (1996), ‘Causal Discovery via MML’, in L. Saitta (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 516–524.Google Scholar
  73. Wolpert, D. H. and McReady, W. G. (1995), No Free Lunch Theorems for Search. TR 95–02–010 Santa Fe Institute. http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/95wplist.htmlGoogle Scholar
  74. Wright, S. (1934) ‘The Method of Path Coefficients’, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 5, pp. 161–215.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin B. Korb
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Monash University, ClaytonVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations