Frame Problem in

Artificial Intelligence
PATRICK J. HAYES
By,
Vinodkumar Gangal
Roll No-130913020
Overview
Introduction
Time & Change
Frame Axioms
Effects of actions
Frame Problem
Qualification problem
Ramification problem.
Some Partial Solutions Using Frame Rules.
Frames
Casual Connection
Strips
Conclusion
References

5/11/2014 2/29
Introduction
A robot is an intelligent system equipped with sensory
capabilities, operating in an environment similar to the
everyday world inhabited by human robots.
Belief is meant any piece of information which is
explicitly stored in the robot's memory.
New beliefs are formed by (at least) two distinct
processes: thinking and observation.
Thinking: involves operations which are purely internal
to the belief system.
Observation: involves interacting with the world, that is,
the external environment and, possibly, other aspects of
the robot's own structure.
5/11/2014 3/29
Time and Change
For him to think about the real world, the robot's beliefs
must handle time. This has two distinct but related
aspects.
(a) There must be beliefs about time. For example,
beliefs about causality.
(b) The robot lives in time: the world changes about him.

The first is solely concerned with thinking: the second
involves observation
R(e,s)
5/11/2014 4/29
Effects of actions
An action performed in a given situation results in a new
situation.
The function Result(action, situation) is used to denote
the situation which results from performing the action
action in the situation situation.
actions are specified in terms of their preconditions and
postconditions(effects)
for example, the action of picking up or dropping a block
in the blocks
V x V s(clear(x) holding(x, Result(pickup, s)))
V x V s( ~holding(x, Result(drop, s)))
5/11/2014 5/29
Frame Axioms
Effect axioms are not sufficient to keep track of whether
the agent is holding a block

V a V x V s( holding(x, s) & (a drop) holding(x,
Result(a, s)))
V a V x V s( ~holding(x, s) & (a pickup) ~holding(x,
Result(a, s)))

axioms which describe which parts of the world are not
changed by an action are called frame axioms.
5/11/2014 6/29
The Frame problem
Representational frame problem.
The inferential frame problem refers to the need to
reason explicitly about things that dont change.

when reasoning about sequences of actions, each
property must be (re)derived for each new situation,
even if the property hasnt changed.
since each action usually changes only a few facts about
a situation, this is very inefficient.
5/11/2014 7/29
The qualification problem
in general, it is difficult to specify precisely the situations
in which an action will have the specified (intended)
effect.
For example, it may not be possible to perform a pickup
action if the block is slippery or glued to the table.
if these side conditions are left out of the effect and
frame axioms, we may derive false beliefs about the
consequences of executing an action.
how to qualify the normal effects of an action in
abnormal circumstances is the qualification problem.
5/11/2014 8/29
The ramification problem
In addition to the explicit consequences specified in their
definition, actions also have implicit consequences
For example, picking up a box also picks up all the
objects in the box (if any), and if I take the box
somewhere, I also take its contents etc.
the ramification problem can be seen as the derivation of
the ultimate effects of an action.
may involve additional simple inferences (if the box is in
the living room, then all the objects in the box are in the
living room), reasoning about cause and effect (naive
physics) and other kinds of consequences.
hard to know when to stop
5/11/2014 9/29
The Frame Problem
How to identify effectively which data are relevant in solving a
problem (without first solving the problem)?

Is relevant in the solution?
find a solution with
No time to try all data!
Make educated guesses (e.g. heuristics)
Abstract data (how?)
5/11/2014 10/29
The Frame Problem
Frame problem
Can we let relevance emerge through interplay
between problem concepts and specific data?
relevant concepts shapes the abstraction of data
specific data adapts relevance of concepts
French flag blue, white, red
circle, trapezoid
rectangle
5/11/2014 11/29
The Frame Problem
The frame problem: assumes that perception was
always accurate.

The problem of deciding what parts of the internal model
to update when a change is made to the model or the
external world.
5/11/2014 12/29
The Frame Problem
A problem of determining which elements of a
description are consequentially altered after an event
occurs.
Named after cartoon animation in which a frame of
elements - chairs, walls, etc. - is kept static while the
subjects of attention move around it. Which graphic
elements can remain in the frame and which must be
redrawn per cel?

Child brick ex:
Child knows that other bricks will stay put.


5/11/2014 13/29
Some Partial Solutions Using
Frame Rules
Frames

- a finite number of monadic second-order predicates P,. If
Pi(h) for a non-logical symbol h then we say that h is in
the ith block of the frame.

The frame rule is
where h1hn, are all the non logical symbols which
occur crucially in
5/11/2014 14/29
Some Partial Solutions Using
Frame Rules
Casual Connection:
- that there is a 3-place predicate ->(x,y,S) which has the
intuitive meaning that if x is not connected to y, then any
change to y does not affect x.
- It seems reasonable that -> should be a partial ordering
on its first two arguments (reflexive and transitive).

Strips
5/11/2014 15/29
STRIPS
Stanford Research Institute Problem Solver (1970s)
Planning system for a robotics project.
Knowledge Representation : First Order Logic.

Algorithm : Forward chaining on rules.

Any search procedure : Finds a path from start to goal.
Forward Chaining : Data-driven inferencing.
Backward Chaining : Goal-driven

5/11/2014 16/29
Forward & Backward Chaining
Rule : man(x) mortal(x)
Data : man(Shakespeare)
To prove : mortal(Shakespeare)

Forward Chaining:
man(Shakespeare) matches LHS of Rule.
X = Shakespeare
mortal( Shakespeare) added
-Forward Chaining used by design expert systems

Backward Chaining: uses RHS matching
- Used by diagnostic expert systems
5/11/2014 17/29
Example : Blocks World
STRIPS : A planning system Has rules with
precondition deletion list and addition list
A
C
A
C B
B
START GOAL
Robot
hand
Robot
hand
Sequence of actions :
1. Grab C
2. Pickup C
3. Place on table C
4. Grab B
5. Pickup B

6. Stack B on C
7. Grab A
8. Pickup A
9. Stack A on B




5/11/2014 18/29
Example : Blocks World
Fundamental Problem :
The frame problem in AI is concerned with the question
of what piece of knowledge is relevant to the situation.

Fundamental Assumption : Closed world assumption
If something is not asserted in the knowledge base, it is
assumed to be false.

(Also called Negation by failure)

5/11/2014 19/29
Example : Blocks World
STRIPS : A planning system Has rules with
precondition deletion list and addition list
on(B, table)
on(A, table)
on(C, A)
hand empty
clear(C)
clear(B)
on(C, table)
on(B, C)
on(A, B)
hand empty
clear(A)
A
C
A
C B
B
START GOAL
Robot
hand
Robot
hand
5/11/2014 20/29
Rules
R1 : pickup(x)
Precondition & Deletion List : hand empty,
on(x,table), clear(x)
Add List : holding(x)

R2 : putdown(x)
Precondition & Deletion List : holding(x)
Add List : hand empty, on(x,table), clear(x)


5/11/2014 21/29
Rules
R3 : stack(x,y)
Precondition & Deletion List :holding(x), clear(y)
Add List : on(x,y), clear(x)

R4 : unstack(x,y)
Precondition & Deletion List : on(x,y), clear(x)
Add List : holding(x), clear(y)


5/11/2014 22/29
Plan for the block world problem
For the given problem, Start Goal can be achieved
by the following sequence :
1. Unstack(C,A)
2. Putdown(C)
3. Pickup(B)
4. Stack(B,C)
5. Pickup(A)
6. Stack(A,B)
Execution of a plan: achieved through a data structure
called Triangular Table.
5/11/2014 23/29
Triangular Table
holding(C)
unstack(C,A)
putdown(C)
hand empty on(B,table) pickup(B)
clear(C) holding(B) stack(B,C)
on(A,table) clear(A) hand empty pickup(A)
clear(B) holding(A) stack(A,B)
on(C,table) on(B,C) on(A,B)
clear(A)
clear(C)
on(C,A)
hand empty
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5/11/2014 24/29
Triangular Table
For n operations in the plan, there are :
(n+1) rows : 1 n+1
(n+1) columns : 0 n
At the end of the i
th
row, place the i
th
component of the plan.
The row entries for the i
th
step contain the pre-conditions for the
i
th
operation.
The column entries for the j
th
column contain the add list for the
rule on the top.
The <i,j>
th
cell (where 1 i n+1 and 0 j n) contain the pre-
conditions for the i
th
operation that are added by the j
th
operation.
The first column indicates the starting state and the last row
indicates the goal state.

5/11/2014 25/29
Search in case of planning
Ex: Blocks world

Triangular table leads
to some amount of fault-tolerance in the robot
Start
S
1
S
2
Pickup(B) Unstack(C,A)
A
C
B
START
A C B
A
C B
WRON
G
MOVE
NOT ALLOWED
5/11/2014 26/29
Conclusion
In the long run, frame rules will be required
for non-trivial problems, corresponding
respectively to the "strategic" and "tactical"
aspects of computing descriptions of new
situations.
One outstanding defect of present
approaches is the lack of a clear model
theory.
Even to begin such a project would seem to
require deep insight into our pre-systematic
intuitions about the physical world.
5/11/2014 27/29
References
[1] F. Bacchus, J. Halpern, H.J. Levesque, Reasoning about noisy sensors and effectors in the situation calculus,
Artificial Intelligence 111 (1999) 171208.
[2] C. Baral, T. Son, Formalizing sensing actionsA transition function based approach, Artificial Intelligence
125 (2001) 1991.
[3] R. Bull, K. Segerberg, Basic modal logic, in: D. Gabbay, F. Guenther (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical
Logic, Vol. II, Chapter 1, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984, pp. 188.
[4] B.F. Chellas, Modal Logic: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.
[5] O. Etzioni, S. Hanks, D.Weld, D. Draper, N. Lesh,M.Williamson, An approach to planning with incomplete
information, in: B. Nebel, C. Rich, W. Swartout (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and
Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, Cambridge, MA, 1992, pp. 115125.
[6] R. Fagin, J.Y. Halpern, Y.O. Moses, M.Y. Vardi, Reasoning about Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
1995.
[7] A. Frisch, R. Scherl, A general framework for modal deduction, in: J.A. Allen, R. Fikes, E. Sandewall
(Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International
Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1991, pp. 196207.
[8] J. Funge, Representing knowledge within the situation calculus using interval-valued epistemic fluents,
J. Reliable Comput. 5 (1) (1999).
[9] G. De Giacomo, H.J. Levesque, Projecting using regression and sensors, in: Proc. IJCAI-99, Stockholm,
Sweden, 1999, pp. 160165.
[10] G. De Giacomo, H.J. Levesque, An incremental interpreter for high-level programs with sensing, in: Logical
Foundations for Cognitive Agents: Contributions in honor of Ray Reiter, Springer, Berlin, 1999, pp. 86102.
5/11/2014 28/29

Thank you
5/11/2014 29/29