Reflective, self-adaptive problem solvers

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 867)


Problem-solving systems, situated in the real world are faced with a great challenge, that is, the dynamic nature of their environment. In any realistic environment the state of the world changes, and therefore, the system's knowledge about the world often becomes incomplete and incorrect. Furthermore, the constraints and the requirements imposed on the system's behavior may also evolve, and as a result, the system's functional architecture may become insufficient to meet the requirements of the evolving task environment. In principle, we would like our systems to be able to adjust themselves in their environments and to sustain quality performance across such environmental changes. To enable a system with the capability of self-adaptation, we have developed a framework for endowing it with the competence of reflection. In this framework, the system's problem-solving behavior is modeled in terms of a SBF model. This model captures a deep comprehension of the system's task structure, world knowledge and their inter-dependencies. The knowledge captured in the SBF model of a system enables it, when it fails, to identify the need to update its world knowledge and also appropriately redesign its functional architecture.


Domain Knowledge Semantic Relation Truth Table World Object Organizational Relation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Allemang: Understanding Programs as Devices, PhD Thesis, The Ohio State University (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Chandrasekaran: Towards a functional architecture for intelligence based on generic information processing tasks. In Proceedings of Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1183–1192, Milan (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Chandrasekaran: Task Structures, Knowledge Acquisition and Machine Learning. Machine Learning 4: 341–347 (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.J. Clancey: Heuristic Classification, Artificial Intelligence 27: 289: 350 (1985)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Davis: Interactive transfer of expertise: Acquisition of new inference rules, Artificial Intelligence 12: 121–157 (1977)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Davis: Meta-Rules: Reasoning about Control. Artificial Intelligence 15: 179–222 (1980)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.S. Gero, H.S. Lee and K.W. Tham: Behaviour: A Link between Function and Structure in Design, In Proceedings IFIP WG5.2 Working Conference on Intelligent CAD, pp. 201–230. (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Goel: Integration of Case-Based Reasoning and Model-Based Reasoning for Adaptive Design Problem Solving, PhD Thesis, The Ohio State University (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Goel: A Model-Based Approach to Case Adaptation. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, August 7–10, pp. 143–148 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Goel, T. Callantine, M. Shankar, B. Chandrasekaran: Representation, Organization, and Use of Topographic Models of Physical Spaces for Route Planning. In Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE Conference on AI Applications. 308–314, IEEE Computer Society Press (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Goel, T. Callantine: An Experience-Based Approach to Navigational Route Planning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Systems (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Johnson: Exploiting a Functional Model of Problem Solving for Error Detection in Tutoring, PhD Thesis, The Ohio State University (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Marcques, G. Dallemagne, G. Klinker, J. McDermott, D. Tung: Easy Programming: Empowering people to build their own applications. IEEE Expert, June 1992, 16–29.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. McDermott: Preliminary steps toward a taxonomy of problem-solving methods, In Sandra Marcus (ed.): Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Minsky: Steps Towards Artificial Intelligence. In Feigenbaum and Feldman (eds): Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York. (1963)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Minton: Qualitative results concerning the utility of explanation-based learning. Artificial Intelligence 42: 363–392 (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T.M. Mitchell, P.E. Utgoff, B. Nudel, R.B. Banerji Learning problem-solving heuristics through practice. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on AI 127–134 (1981)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Samuel: Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of RD. (1959) Reprinted in Feigenbaum and Feldman (eds.): Computers and Thought (1963)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R.G. Simmons: Combining Associational Causal Reasoning to Solve Interpretation and Planning Problems, MIT Report 1048.(1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.G. Sussman: A Computational Model of Skill Acquisition, American Elsevier, New York, (1975)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Steels: Components of Expertise. AI Magazine 11: 30–49 (1990).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. Stroulia and A. Goel: Generic Teleological Mechanisms and their Use in Case Adaptation. In the Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 319–324. (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Stroulia, A. Goel: Functional Representation and Reasoning for Reflective Systems. Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal (to appear). (1993)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Y. Umeda, H. Takeda, T. Tomiyama, H. Yoshikawa: Function, Behaviour, and Structure. In Gero (ed.): Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, vol 1, Design, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 177–193. (1990)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Weintraub: An Explanation-Based Approach to Assigning Credit, PhD Thesis, The Ohio State University (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    B.J. Wielinga, A.Th. Schreiber, J.A. Breuker: KADS: A modelling approach to knowledge engineering. In Knowledge Acquisition 4(1). Special issue “The KADS approach to knowledge engineering” (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Wilensky: Planning and Understanding, A Computational Approach to Human Reasoning. Addison Wesley. (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta

Personalised recommendations