Second Generation Expert Systems pp 79-92 | Cite as
Generate, Test and Debug: A Paradigm for Combining Associational and Causal Reasoning
Abstract
Efficiency and robustness are two desirable, but often conflicting, goals of problem solvers. This paper examines how a combination of associational and causal reasoning can be used to achieve both goals. We describe the Generate, Test and Debug (GTD) paradigm, which uses associational reasoning to solve most problems efficiently, while relying on causal reasoning to maintain overall robustness. The problem-solving characteristics of associational and causal reasoning are presented, based on an analysis of the types of knowledge and reasoning used in GTD. In particular, we argue that the characteristics depend largely on the extent to which interactions between events are represented and reasoned about — associational reasoning is efficient because it uses rules that (nearly) encapsulate interactions, while causal reasoning is robust because it analyzes the effects of events and their interactions.
Keywords
Goal State Causal Reasoning Geologic Interpretation Correct Hypothesis Local InterpretationPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Chandrasekaran, B.: Towards a functional architecture for intelligence based on generic information processing tasks. Proc. IJCAI-87, Milan, Italy (1987)Google Scholar
- 2.Chapman, D.: Planning for conjunctive goals. Artificial Intelligence 32 (1987) 333–377MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Hammond, K.: Case-Based Planning: Viewing Planning as a Memory Task. Academic Press, (1989)Google Scholar
- 4.Koton, P.: Combining causal models and case-based reasoning. in Second Generation Expert Systems, David, Krivine and Simmons (eds.), Springer Verlag (1993)Google Scholar
- 5.Rich, C. and Waters, R.: Abstraction, inspection and debugging in programming. MIT AI Memo 634 (1981)Google Scholar
- 6.Sacerdoti, E.: A Structure for Plans and Behavior. American Elsevier (1977)Google Scholar
- 7.Simmons, R.: Representing and reasoning about change in geologic interpretation. MIT AI Technical Report 749 (1983)Google Scholar
- 8.Simmons, R.: A theory of debugging plans and interpretations. Proc. AAAI-88, St. Paul, MN (1988)Google Scholar
- 9.Simmons, R.: Combining associational and causal reasoning to solve interpretation and planning problems. MIT AI Technical Report 1048 (PhD Thesis) (1988)Google Scholar
- 10.Simmons, R.: Integrating Multiple Representations for Incremental, Causal Simulation. Proc. Conference on AI, Simulation, and Planning, Cocoa Beach, FL (1991) 88–96Google Scholar
- 11.Simmons, R.: The roles of associational and causal reasoning in problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 53:2–3 (1992) 159–208MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Simmons, R. and Davis, R.: Generate, test and debug: Combining associational rules and causal models. Proc. IJCAI-87, Milan, Italy (1987)Google Scholar
- 13.Simmons, R. and Mohammed, J.: Causal modeling of semiconductor fabrication. International Journal for Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 4:1 (1989) 2–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Simon, H.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press (1969)Google Scholar
- 15.Sussman, G.: A computer model of skill acquisition. American Elsevier (1977)Google Scholar
- 16.Torasso, P. and Console, L.: Diagnostic Problem Solving: Combining Heuristic, Approximate and Causal Reasoning. Van Nostrand Reinhold, (1989)Google Scholar
- 17.Williams, B.: A theory of interactions: Unifying qualitative and quantitative algebraic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 51:1–3 (1991) 39–94MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar