Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
other ways, for instance the generalization of training examples. For another,
most systems recognize training examples and assess operationality by execution
time but virtually there are different aspects of efficiency to assess the
performance, such as space efficiency. It is operable considering time efficiency
while inoperable when considering space efficiency. Besides efficiency, there are
cost, simpleness etc which may affect the operationality, are related to
performance
9.8.2
Operationality of SOAR
SOAR, which is developed by Laird, Newell and Rosembloom, introduces a
different way of defining operationality criterion. It is not developed as a single
EBL system, but only attempts to implement a general cognitive structure by
means of an independent learning mechanism chunking. The operation of
chunking is to sum up the examined information when dealing with each
sub-goal. This is very similar to EBL, and it seems that EBL can be implemented
in SOAR by chunking. The input of chunking is the linear sequences or tree-like
sequences of operators. The task of the system is to convert the operators into
meta-operators or chunk. SOAR mainly uses chunking to obtain knowledge
thereafter leave out the utility. On one hand it is supposed that chunking obtains
knowledge automatically and on the other hand the performance of SOAR is
measured according to the number of choices made when completing a task.
Since chunking can reduce the amount of choices, it is worth while according to
performance formula. In fact, each choice itself may be complicated; hence the
amount of choice is not proportional to the execution time of mainframe without
considering this.
9.8.3
Operationality of MRS-EBG
Hirsh implemented MRS-EBG in the logical programming system; the
operationality criterion is provable based on meta-inference of MRS. In MRS, the
proof strategy can be illustrated with meta-theory. For instance, meta-rule can be
used to elaborate on this kind of rule: it is more possible to choose a proof path
which takes advantage of arithmetic predicates. Predicates contained in MRS can
show this property. Therefore it is easy to show the following operationality rule:
Arithmetic_Predicates (pred(arg
1
,arg
n
))-operational(pred(arg
1
,arg
5
))
Hirsh believed that the previous EBG generated the explanation structure of
an example and the generalized explanation structure. However, there is no
operationality inference when the explanation structure is created, the
operationality should be determined and explanation structure can be changed in
