翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Framley Parsonage
・ Framlingham
・ Framlingham Branch
・ Framlingham Castle
・ Framlingham College
・ Framlingham Gawdy
・ Framlingham Mere
・ Framlingham railway station
・ Framlingham Town F.C.
・ Framlingham, Victoria
・ Frame of Government of Pennsylvania
・ Frame of Mind
・ Frame of Mind (album)
・ Frame of Mind (film)
・ Frame of reference
Frame problem
・ Frame Protocol
・ Frame Publishers
・ Frame rate
・ Frame rate control
・ Frame Relay
・ Frame Ridge
・ Frame saw
・ Frame semantics
・ Frame semantics (linguistics)
・ Frame slip
・ Frame story
・ Frame synchronization
・ Frame synchronization (video)
・ Frame Technology


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Frame problem : ウィキペディア英語版
Frame problem
In artificial intelligence, the frame problem describes an issue with using first-order logic (FOL) to express facts about a robot in the world. Representing the state of a robot with traditional FOL requires the use of many axioms that simply imply that things in the environment do not change arbitrarily. For example, Hayes describes a 'block world' with rules about stacking blocks together. In a FOL system, additional axioms are required to make inferences about the environment (for example, that a block cannot change position unless it's physically moved). The frame problem is the problem of finding adequate collections of axioms for a viable description of a robot environment.
John McCarthy and Patrick J. Hayes defined this problem in their 1969 article, ''Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence''. In this paper and many that came after the formal mathematical problem was a starting point for more general discussions of the difficulty of knowledge representation for artificial intelligence. Issues such as how to provide rational default assumptions and what humans consider common sense in a virtual environment. Later, the term acquired a broader meaning in philosophy, where it is formulated as the problem of limiting the beliefs that have to be updated in response to actions. In the logical context, actions are typically specified by what they change, with the implicit assumption that everything else (the frame) remains unchanged.
==Description==
The frame problem occurs even in very simple domains. A scenario with a door, which can be open or closed, and a light, which can be on or off, is statically represented by two propositions \textit and \textit. If these conditions can change, they are better represented by two predicates \textit(t) and \textit(t) that depend on time; such predicates are called fluents. A domain in which the door is closed and the light off at time 0, and the door opened at time 1, can be directly represented in logic by the following formulae:
:\neg \textit(0)
:\neg \textit(0)
:\textit \rightarrow \textit(1)
The first two formulae represent the initial situation; the third formula represents the effect of executing the action of opening the door at time 1. If such an action had preconditions, such as the door being unlocked, it would have been represented by \neg \textit(0) \rightarrow \textit(1). In practice, one would have a predicate \textit(t) for specifying when an action is executed and a rule \forall t . \textit(t) \wedge \textit \rightarrow \textit(t+1) for specifying the effects of actions. The article on the situation calculus gives more details.
While the three formulae above are a direct expression in logic of what is known, they do not suffice to correctly draw consequences. While the following conditions (representing the expected situation) are consistent with the three formulae above, they are not the only ones.
:(1)
|-
| \neg \textit(0) || \neg \textit(1)
|}
Indeed, another set of conditions that is consistent with the three formulae above is:
:(1)
|-
| \neg \textit(0) || \textit(1)
|}
The frame problem is that specifying only which conditions are changed by the actions do not allow, in logic, to conclude that all other conditions are not changed. This problem can be solved by adding the so-called “frame axioms”, which explicitly specify that all conditions not affected by actions are not changed while executing that action. For example, since the action executed at time 0 is that of opening the door, a frame axiom would state that the status of the light does not change from time 0 to time 1:
:\textit(0) \leftrightarrow \textit(1)
The frame problem is that one such frame axiom is necessary for every pair of action and condition such that the action does not affect the condition. In other words, the problem is that of formalizing a dynamical domain without explicitly specifying the frame axioms.
The solution proposed by McCarthy to solve this problem involves assuming that a minimal amount of condition changes have occurred; this solution is formalized using the framework of circumscription. The Yale shooting problem, however, shows that this solution is not always correct. Alternative solutions were then proposed, involving predicate completion, fluent occlusion, successor state axioms, etc.; they are explained below. By the end of the 1980s, the frame problem as defined by McCarthy and Hayes was solved. Even after that, however, the term “frame problem” was still used, in part to refer to the same problem but under different settings (e.g., concurrent actions), and in part to refer to the general problem of representing and reasoning with dynamical domains.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Frame problem」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.