Update on RKF progress October, 2000 Ken Forbus Qualitative Reasoning Group Northwestern University.

Update on RKF progressOctober, 2000

Ken Forbus

Qualitative Reasoning Group

Northwestern University

Overview

• Analogical Reasoning• Reasoning Engines• Domain Theories• Sketching

Our analogical processing tools

Base

Target

SME

Inputs = propositional descriptions, w/ incremental updatesOutput = one or twomappings

Operates in polynomial time,by exploiting graph labels & greedy algorithms

Mappings = correspondences + structural evaluation + candidate inferences

SME

SME

SME

CVmatch

CVmatch

CVmatch

CVmatch

MemoryPool

Output = memory item+ SME results

Probe

Structure-Mapping Engineprovides analogical

matching

MAC/FAC providessimilarity-based

retrieval

Cheap, fast, non-structural

No hand-indexingof cases required

How SEQL Works

Exemplars…

GeneralizationsSME

NewStimulus

1. Compare against each generalization Gi. If close

enough, assimilate input into Gi by replacing Gi with the overlap of Gi and input and

halt.

2. Compare input against each exemplar Ei. If similar enough, create new generalization from overlap of Ei and input, halt. If

nothing similar enough, add input to set of exemplars

SEQL refines knowledge by progressive alignment of examples

New: The GEL algorithm

Case Mapper: An Analogy GUI

• Goal: Provide civilized interface for entering knowledge via analogy– Should be useful platform for experimenting with

dialogue moves

• Current state– Basic functionality showing signs of life– AI-expert friendly

• Next steps– Improved pidgin– Interface to inference machinery for candidate

inference evaluation– Explore using dialogue management, simple NLP for

interaction

Initial results of Matching

Exploring the candidate inferences

Integrating into the E2E system

• Strategy: Provide analogy server– KQML for communication

– Strategies for analogical reasoning coded in next-generation reasoner

• Advantages– Neutral with respect to uniprocessor/distributed

operation

– Enables us to tune our strategies more easily

• Drawbacks– Sockets as bottleneck

– Need to keep KB in synch

• Alternative strategy: Assimilation

Domain Theory Environment (DTE)

KnowledgeBase

Reasoner

AnalogicalReasoner

SpatialReasoner

GIS

Domain Theory Environment (DTE)

KnowledgeBase

Reasoner

AnalogicalReasoner

SpatialReasoner

GIS

Uses ODBC, Relational database(Microsoft Access) to store

KB contents(inspired by Hendler’s PARKA-

DB)

Domain Theory Environment (DTE)

KnowledgeBase

Reasoner

AnalogicalReasoner

SpatialReasoner

GIS

Federated architecture,supports reasoning sourcesthat provide special-purpose

capabilities efficiently

Domain Theory Environment (DTE)

KnowledgeBase

Reasoner

AnalogicalReasoner

SpatialReasoner

GIS

Query-driven backchainerprovides basic reasoning services,

integration mechanism

Domain Theory Environment (DTE)

KnowledgeBase

Reasoner

AnalogicalReasoner

SpatialReasoner

GIS

KQML interface for building servers

(e.g., analogy server,geographic reasoner)

DTE Problems

KnowledgeBase

Reasoner

AnalogicalReasoner

SpatialReasoner

GIS

Too slow, not scaling well

High overhead,too many computational

cliffs

Solution: Build next-generation system

• Collaborating with Xerox PARC– John Everett, Reinhard Stolle, Bob Cheslow

• Keeping good ideas in DTE:– Federated architecture/Reasoning sources model

– Using database to implement KB

– Query mechanism with simple backchainer as glue

– Use of LTMS for justifications, reasoning

• Overall structure of interfaces to applications using it will be similar

• Internals will be very different

Next-generation system

KnowledgeBase

Reasoner

AnalogicalReasoner

SpatialReasoner

GIS

Special-purpose C++ database,written by PARC. Built-in

support for pattern matching.Adding new knowledge:

DTE DB: 4 assertions/secondNew DB: 98 assertions/secondRetrieval:2-3 msec, in 111K

assertion KB(preliminary data)

Next-generation System

KnowledgeBase

Reasoner

AnalogicalReasoner

SpatialReasoner

GIS

Working memory = LTRE + discrimination tree indexing.

Suggestions Architecture:Limit backchaining for “quick”

reasoning. Expensive operations queued as

suggestions, processed via agenda mechanism.

Multithreaded, to exploit time user spends doing other things.

Especially important for sketching, dialogue

management

Next-Generation System

KnowledgeBase

AnalogicalReasoner

SpatialReasoner

Gizmo Mk2

PerceptualInk

Processor

Reasoner

Streamlined reasoning source interface, with constraint posting

for query optimizer.

Provide qualitative reasoningservices by embedding QP

theory implementation

Create ink-based spatial reasoner, organized for

incremental processing from the ground up

Current schedule

• Halloween: First version turning over• Thanksgiving: DTE applications ported• Christmas: First round of performance tuning

finished

Everyday Physical Semantics domain theory

• Claim: There is a basic set of physical notions that need to be understood in order to interpret sketched explanations– e.g., Simple notions of

surfaces, volumes, forces, and materials

• Claim: Qualitative physics research can provide most of this knowledge– Much of it has already been

done, in isolated pieces– Needs to be integrated, gaps

filled– Tied to sketch-based spatial

representations

• Surface constraints on motion– Will use Nielsen’s qualitative

mechanics

• Fluid Ontologies– Collins’ molecular collection

ontology

– Kim’s bounded stuff ontology

– + usual contained stuff ontology

• Surface/fluid interactions– Kim’s qualitative streamline

theory

• Qualitative topology– Cohn’s spatial algebras

• Qualitative Statics– Nielsen & Kim’s qualitative

vectors

Multiple Perspectives: An example

• How to reason about liquids?• Two models, due to Hayes

– Contained stuff ontology: Individuate liquid via the space that it is in.

– Piece of stuff ontology: Individuate liquid as a particular collection of molecules.

Fluid ontologies

• Contained stuffs– Most detailed: Paper with John Collins, FSThermo

domain theory

• Pieces of stuff– Molecular collections (w/John Collins)

– Plugs (Gordon Skorstad)

• Bounded stuffs (H. Kim)

Molecular Collection ontology

• Idea: Follow a little piece of stuff around a system– So small that when it reaches a junction, it never splits

apart

• Provides the perspective gained by tracing through a system of changes

Two containers example

Steam plant example

Refrigerator example

Bounded stuffs

• Specialization of contained stuff ontology• Where something is within the space matters

– Affects connectivity

Ontology zoo for liquids

Contained Stuff Piece of Stuff

PlugMolecularCollection

Bounded Stuff

Parasitic on

Qualitative Mechanics• Provides axioms for

interaction of solids and surfaces– Qualitative vector

representation

• Assumes visual parsing of 2D shapes– Center of gravity, center of

rotation critical

– Surfaces broken at corners, points of contact

not OkOk

Ok

not Ok

Qualitative Mechanics

• Qualitative angles and vectors• How forces interact with surfaces, constraints on

motion• Laminar flow fields

Engineering Thermodynamics

• Basics of heat, mass flow• In-depth KB for supporting design, analysis• KB for supporting textbook problem solving

– Includes control knowledge, analysis of roles for equations in problem-solving

– Pisan’s Ph.D. thesis solves most problems in typical engineering thermodynamics textbooks

• Teleological representations for thermodynamic cycles– No chemical interactions

Sketching for knowledge acquisition• sKEA: Sketch-based Knowledge Entry

Associate– Built on top of nuSketch + significant

extensions– Rich perceptual processing of digital

ink• Will support visual analogies and

analogies using diagrams Speech I/O and specialized Dialogue Manager

• Can be used standalone or as component in larger system

• Ink Interpretation is key problem– Collaborating with PARC vision

group (Eric Saund, Jim Mahoney) for perceptual processing

– Developing domain theories that bridge perception and conceptual knowledge

sKEA

Digital ink

Everyday Physical SemanticsDomain Theory

Graphical SymbologyDomain Theory

PerceptualInk Processor

High-Level VisualInterpreter(GeoRep II)

DTE + EvidentialReasoner

MultimodalIntegrator

Speech I/O

Current Sketches+ Interpretations

RKF Team System

Tools we will use in sketching

Lo w-le ve lre la tio ns

Hig h-le ve lre la tio ns(p la c e vo c a b ula ry)

LLRD HLRD

Dom ain-specific

rules

Visual operation

library

Lined ra wing

L1 L3

L4

L5

C 1 C 2

L2

GeoRep MAGI

MAGI models processes ofsymmetry and regularity detection

• Uses variation of structure-mapping laws to detect self-similarity

• Same software operates on visual, functional, conceptual, and mathematical representations

•Makes predictions consistent with human perceptual data

GeoRep provides high-levelvisual processing for

spatial reasoning

Provides equivalentof Ullman’s universal

visual routines

Provides bridgebetween the visualand the conceptual

Visual Symbology domain theory• Represents conventions for

displaying conceptual information graphically

• Includes

– What visual entities often depict

• boxes, blobs, arrows, etc.

– Conventional views • side/top/bottom, 2D/3D,

abstract/physical, cutaways

– Conceptual interpretation of visual relations

• proximity/alignment indicating grouping, inside indicating containment or partonomy,touching indicating contact

State(before) Process

State(after)

Arg2Arg1 Binary

Relationship

CellDNA

VirusDNA

(Part-of cellDNA cell)

(in-contact (protein-coat virus) (lysosome cell))

Approach: Blob Semantics

• Shape, object recognition irrelevant– Linguistic input provides labels and type information– Arrows may be exception wrt recognition

• Spatial relationships between blobs is central– Topology

• Touching or not, inside, overlap

– Proximity• What arrows refer to

– Orientation• Multiple reference frames• Quadrant plus relative inclination

– Conceptual interpretation of spatial relationships

• Hypothesis: Sufficient for– Process diagrams– Action sequences

Issues in blob semantics

• Adequacy of visual primitives• User-defined diagram types

– Kinds of objects participating

– Conceptual interpretation of spatial relationships

• Arrow recognition– Support different types of arrows?

Perceptual Ink Processor

• Will use next-generation reasoner for conceptual side of reasoning

• For visual reasoning, draw on three sources:– Our work on GeoRep and Magi (Ferguson’s Ph.D.

work)

– Eric Saund’s scale-space blackboard (Xerox PARC)• Stroke-based visual routines

• Should provide robust proximity detection

– Jim Mahoney’s MAPS ideas (Xerox PARC)• Bitmap-based visual routines

• Should provide robust qualitative descriptions of free space

Example: eTDG10 Map

SR Regions for eTDG10 map (hand-sketched)

Hard constraints from SR regions

Voronoi diagram for free space

Junctions provide seeds for open regions

Regions extended from seeds

Edges outside regions form corridor seeds

Combined results for eTDG10

Speech or not?

• Most multimodal systems use speech recognition– Hands, eyes busy with diagram– Potential problems with speech for RKF

• Novel nouns, phrases could lead to distracting speech training during knowledge entry

• How open-ended is grammar? Necessity versus user expectations

• Trying both in RKF– NLP support with speech

• LKB parser (Stanford CSLI)

– Experiment: Speechless multimodal interface• Type (or write) label for instance, collection• Draw button, as in nuSketch COA Creator• Sacrifice fluidity for expressiveness

Intermediate goal: 1st generation sKEA

• sKEA = sketching Knowledge Entry Associate– nuSketch application for knowledge formation

• Initial targets– Process diagrams

– Action sequences

• Additional task: Scenario setup for testing everyday physical semantics– Draw examples from biomechanics