Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T13:50:42.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discovery of physical principles from design experiences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Sambasiva R. Bhatta  and
Ashok K. Goel
Sambasiva R. Bhatta
Affiliation:
College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332–0280
Ashok K. Goel
Affiliation:
College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332–0280
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One method for making analogies is to access and instantiate abstract domain principles, and one method for acquiring knowledge of abstract principles is to discover them from experience. We view generalization over experiences in the absence of any prior knowledge of the target principle as the task of hypothesis formation, a subtask of discovery. Also, we view the use of the hypothesized principles for analogical design as the task of hypothesis testing, another subtask of discovery. In this paper, we focus on discovery of physical principles by generalization over design experiences in the domain of physical devices. Some important issues in generalization from experiences are what to generalize from an experience, how far to generalize, and what methods to use. We represent a reasoner's comprehension of specific designs in the form of structure-behavior-function (SBF) models. An SBF model provides a functional and causal explanation of the working of a device. We represent domain principles as device-independent behavior-function (BF) models. We show that (1) the function of a device determines what to generalize from its SBF model, (2) the SBF model itself suggests how far to generalize, and (3) the typology of functions indicates what method to use.

Keywords

Analogical ReasoningQualitative ModelsModel-based Learning

Information

Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Spring 1994 , pp. 113 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alterman, R. (1988). Adaptive planning. Cog. Sci. 12, 393–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, K., & Rissland, E. (1988). A case-based approach to modeling legal expertise. IEEE Expert 3(3), 70–77.Google Scholar
Bhatta, S. (1992). A model-based approach to analogical reasoning and learning in design. Technical Report GIT-CC-92/60, Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Computing, Atlanta, GA, November. Ph.D. Thesis Proposal.Google Scholar
Bhatta, S., & Goel, A. (1992). Use of mental models for constraining index learning in experience-based design. Proc. AAAI Workshop “Constraining Learning with Prior Knowledge,” 1–10.Google Scholar
Bhatta, S., & Goel, A. (1993). Model-based learning of structural indices to design cases. Proc. IJCAI Workshop “Reuse of Designs: An Interdisciplinary Cognitive Approach,” A1-A13.Google Scholar
Bylander, T., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1985). Understanding behavior using consolidation. Proc. Ninth Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, 450–454.Google Scholar
DeJong, G., & Mooney, R. (1986). Explanation-based learning: An alternative view. Machine Learning 1(2), 145–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenhainer, B., & Michalski, R. (1986). Integrating quantitative and qualitative discovery: The ABACUS system. Machine Learning 1, 367–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fermi, E. (1937). Thermodynamics. Prentice-Hall, New York.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cog. Sci. 7, 155–170.Google Scholar
Gero, J. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11(4), 26–36.Google Scholar
Goel, A. (1989). Integration of Case-Based Reasoning and Model-Based Reasoning for Adaptive Design Problem Solving. Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Goel, A. (1991 a). A model-based approach to case adaptation. Proc. Thirteenth Annu. Conf. Cognitive Science Society, 143–148.Google Scholar
Goel, A. (1991 b). Model revision: A theory of incremental model learning. In Proc. Eighth Int. Conf. Machine Learning, 605–609.Google Scholar
Goel, A. (1992). Representation of design functions in experience-based design. In Intelligent Computer Aided Design (Brown, D., Waldron, M., and Yoshikawa, H., eds.), pp. 283–308. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. (1989). Case-Based Planning: Viewing Planning as a Memory Task. Academic Press, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, S., & Duffy, A. (1992). Dynamic memory by automating rationalization of past designs. Proc. AID'92 Workshop, “Machine Learning in Design,” 28–30.Google Scholar
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cog. Sci. 12, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodner, J.L., & Simpson, R.L. (1989). The MEDIATOR: Analysis of an early case-based problem solver. Cog. Sci. 13(4), 507–549.Google Scholar
Langley, P., Simon, H., Bradshaw, G., & Zytkow, J. (1987). Scientific Discovery: An Account of the Creative Processes. MIT Press, Boston, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, T.M., Keller, R., & Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1986). Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view. Machine Learning 1(1), 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pazzani, M. (1991). Learning to predict and explain: An integration of similarity-based, theory-driven, and explanation-based learning. J. Learning Sci. 1(2), 153–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhakar, S., & Goel, A. (1992). Performance-driven creativity in design: Constraint discovery, model revision, and case composition. Proc. Second Int. Round-table Conf. Computational Models of Creative Design, 101–128.Google Scholar
Riesbeck, C., & Schank, R. (1989). Inside Case-Based Reasoning. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Roverso, D., Edwards, P., & Sleeman, D. (1992). Machine Discovery by Model Driven Analogy. Proceedings of the ML-92 Workshop on “Machine Discovery,” (Zytkow, J. M., Ed.), pp. 87–97, Aberdeen, Scotland, July 1992.Google Scholar
Sembugamoorthy, V., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1986). Functional representation of devices and compilation of diagnostic problem-solving systems. In Experience, Memory and Reasoning (Kolodner, J., and Riesbeck, C., Eds.), pp. 47–73. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Shinn, H. S. (1989). A Unified Approach to Analogical Reasoning. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Information and Computer Science, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Winston, P. (1980). Learning and reasoning by analogy. Commun. ACM 23(12), 689–703.Google Scholar
Winston, P. (1982). Learning new principles from precedents and exercises. Artificial Intelligence 19(3), 321–350.Google Scholar
Winston, P. (1986). Learning by augmenting rules and accumulating censors. In Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, (Michalski, R., Carbonell, J., and Mitchell, T., Eds.), Vol. II, pp. 45–61. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
Zytkow, J. (1987). Combining many searches in the FAHRENHEIT discovery system. Proc. Fourth Int. Workshop on Machine Learning, 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar