Flattening Goal Hierarchies

  • Jans Aasman
  • Aladin Akyürek
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Cognitive Systems book series (COGS, volume 10)

Abstract

Current default rules for operator tie impasses in Soar are examined in relation to known constraints on human memory and real-time requirements imposed on human behavior in dynamic environments. The analysis shows that an alternative approach is required for resolving such impasses, which does not ignore these constraints. As such, this objective is not new. Newell (1990) advocated that the “single state principle” be used in all impasse handling to reduce the “computational cost” associated with it. While the current version of Soar is based on this principle, the default rules for ties still do not satisfy the constraints in question. This paper explores alternative sets of rules that appear promising in meeting them.

Keywords

Task Operator Task State Problem Space Default Rule Explicit Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aasman, J., & Michon, J. A. (1992). Multitasking in driving. In J. A. Michon & A. Akyürek (Eds.), Soar: A cognitive architecture in perspective (pp. 169–198). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akyürek, A. (1992). Means-ends planning: An example Soar system. In J. A. Michon & A. Akyürek (Eds.), Soar: A cognitive architecture in perspective (pp. 109–167). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobrow, D. G., & Norman, D. A. (1975). Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 131–149). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Elgot-Drapkin, J., Miller, M., & Pedis, D. (1987). Life on a desert island: Ongoing work on real-time reasoning. In F. M. Brown (Ed.), The frame problem in artificial intelligence (pp. 349–357). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  5. Hucka, M. (1989).Planning, interruptabiliJy, and learning in Soar. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science De-partment, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  6. Laird, J. E. (1984).Universal subgoaling (Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-84-129). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Computer Science. [Also available as pan of Laird, J., Rosenbloom, P., & Newell, A. (1986).Universal subgoaling and chunking: The automatic generation and learning of goal hierarchies (pp. 1–131). Boston, MA: Kluwer.]Google Scholar
  7. Laird, J. E., Congdon, C. B., Altmann, E., & Swedlow, K. (1990).Soar user’s manual: Version 5.2 (Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-90-179). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  8. Laird, J. E., Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1987). SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence.Artificial Intelligence, 33, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Laird, J., & Newell, A. (1983).A universal weak method (Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-83-141). Pittsburgh, P A: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  10. Laird, J., Rosenbloom, P., & Newell, A. (1986). Universal subgoaling and chunking: The automatic generation and learning of goal hierarchies.Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, R. L., Huffman, S. B., John, B. E., Laird, J. E., Lehman, J. F., Newell. A., Rosenbloom, P. S., Simon, T., & Tessler, S. G. (1990). Soar as a unified theory of cognition: Spring 1990. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Sci-ence Society (pp. 1035–1042). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Minton, S. (1988).Learning search control knowledge: An explanation-based approach. Boston, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Newell, A. (1990).Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Newell, A., Rosenbloom, P. S., & Laird, J. E. (1989). Symbolic architectures for cognition. In M. I. Posner (Ed.).Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 93–131). Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Nilsson, N. J. (1971).Problem-solving methods in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Reitman, W. R. (1965).Cognition and thought: An information-processing approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Rich, E. (1983).Artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenbloom, P. S., Laird, J. E., Newell, A., & McCarl, R. (1991). A preliminary analysis of the Soar architecture as a basis for general intelligence.Artificial Intelligence, 47, 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Steier, D. M., Laird, J. E., Newell, A., Rosenbloom, P. S., Flynn, R. A., Golding, A., Polk, T. A., Shivers, O. G., Unruh, A., & Yost, G. R. (1987). Varieties of learning in Soar: 1987. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 300–311). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  21. Tambe, M., & Newell, A. (1988). Some chunks are expensive. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 451–458). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  22. Tambe, M., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1989). Eliminating expensive chunks by restricting expressiveness. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 731–737). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jans Aasman
    • 1
  • Aladin Akyürek
    • 2
  1. 1.Traffic Research CenterUniversity of GroningenHarenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations