@chllming/wave-orchestration 0.6.3 → 0.7.1

package/docs/context7/planner-agent/papers/incremental-planning-to-control-a-blackboard-based-problem-solver.md

@@ -0,0 +1,1729 @@
+---
+summary: 'Converted paper text and source links for Incremental Planning to Control a Blackboard-Based Problem Solver.'
+read_when:
+  - Reviewing harness and coordination research source material in the docs tree
+  - You want the extracted paper text with source links preserved
+topics:
+  - planning-and-orchestration
+  - blackboard-and-shared-workspaces
+kind: 'paper'
+title: 'Incremental Planning to Control a Blackboard-Based Problem Solver'
+---
+# Incremental Planning to Control a Blackboard-Based Problem Solver
+
+<Note>
+Converted from the source document on 2026-03-22. The repo does not retain downloaded source files; they were fetched transiently, converted to Markdown, and deleted after extraction.
+</Note>
+
+## Metadata
+
+| Field | Value |
+| --- | --- |
+| Content type | Paper / report |
+| Authors | Edmund H. Durfee, Victor R. Lesser |
+| Year | 1986 |
+| Venue | AAAI-86 |
+| Research bucket | P2 lineage and older references |
+| Maps to | Incremental planning, plan monitoring, and repair for blackboard-based control. |
+| Harness fit | Direct classic reference connecting planning explicitly to blackboard control. |
+| Source page | [Open source](https://cdn.aaai.org/AAAI/1986/AAAI86-010.pdf) |
+| Source PDF | [Open PDF](https://cdn.aaai.org/AAAI/1986/AAAI86-010.pdf) |
+
+## Extracted text
+### Page 1
+
+INCREMENTAL PLANNING
+
+TO CONTROL A BLACKBOARD-BASED
+
+PROBLEM SOLVER
+
+Edmund H. Durfee and Victor R. Lesser
+
+Department of Computer and Information Science
+
+University of Massachusetts
+
+Amherst, Massachusetts 01003
+
+ABSTRACT
+
+To control problem solving activity, a planner must
+
+resolve uncertainty about which specific long-term goals
+
+(solutions) to pursue and about which sequences of actions
+
+will best achieve those goals. In this paper, we describe
+
+a planner that abstracts the problem solving state to
+
+recognize possible competing and compatible solutions
+
+and to roughly predict the importance and expense of
+
+developing these solutions. With this information, the
+
+planner plans sequences of problem solving activities that
+
+most efficiently resolve its uncertainty about which of the
+
+possible solutions to work toward. The planner only
+
+details actions for the near future because the results of
+
+these actions will influence how (and whether) a plan
+
+should be pursued. As problem solving ‘proceeds, the
+
+planner adds new details to the plan incrementally, and
+
+monitors and repairs the plan to insure it achieves its goals
+
+whenever possible. Through experiments, we illustrate
+
+how these new mechanisms significantly improve problem
+
+solving decisions and reduce overall computation, We
+
+briefly discuss our current research directions, including
+
+how these mechanisms can improve a problem solver’s real-
+
+time response and can enhance cooperation in a distributed
+
+problem solving network.
+
+I INTRODUCTION
+
+A problem solver’s planning component must resolve
+
+control uncertainty stemming from two principal sources.
+
+As in typical planners, it must resolve uncertainty about
+
+which sequence of actions will satisfy its long-term goals.
+
+Moreover, whereas most planners are given (possibly
+
+prioritized) well-defined, long-term goals, a problem
+
+solver’s planner must often resolve uncertainty about the
+
+goals to achieve. For example, an interpretation problem
+
+solver that integrates large amounts of data into “good”
+
+overall interpretations must use its data to determine
+
+what specific long-term goals (interpretations) it should
+
+pursue. Because the set of possible interpretations may
+
+be intractably large, the problem solver uses the data to
+
+form promising partial interpretations and then extends
+
+these to converge on likely complete interpretations. The
+
+blackboard-based architecture developed in Hearsay-II
+
+permits such data-directed problem solving [7).
+
+In a purely data-directed problem solver, control
+
+decisions can be based only on the desirability of the
+
+This research was sponsored, in part, by the National Science
+
+Foundation under Grant MCS-8306327, by the National Science
+
+Foundation under Support and Maintenance Grant DCR-8318776, by
+
+the National Science Foundation under CER Grant DCR-8500332, and
+
+by the DefenseAdvancedResearchProjects Agency(DOD), monitored
+
+by the Office of Naval Research under Contract NRO&-041.
+
+expected immediate results of each action. The Hearsay-II
+
+system developed an algorithm for measuring desirability
+
+of actions to better focus problem solving [lo]. Extensions
+
+to the blackboard architecture unify data-directed and
+
+goal-directed control by representing possible extensions
+
+and refinements to partial solutions as explicit goals
+
+[2]. Through goal processing and subgoals, sequences
+
+of related actions can be triggered to achieve important
+
+goals. Further modifications separate control knowledge
+
+and decisions from problem solving activities, permitting
+
+the choice of problem solving actions to be influenced
+
+by strategic considerations [9]. However, none of these
+
+approaches develop and use a high-level view of the current
+
+problem solving situation so that the problem solver can
+
+recognize and work toward more specific long-term goals.
+
+In this paper, we introduce new mechanisms that
+
+allow a blackboard-based problem solver to form such a
+
+high-level view. By abstracting its state, the problem
+
+solver can recognize possible competing and compatible
+
+interpretations, and can use the abstract view of the data to
+
+roughly predict the importance and expense of developing
+
+potential partial solutions. These mechanisms are much
+
+more flexible and complex than those we previously
+
+developed [6] and allow the recognition of relationships
+
+between distant as well as nearby areas in the solution
+
+space, We also present new mechanisms that use the high-
+
+level view to form plans to achieve long-term goals. A
+
+plan represents specific actions for the near future and
+
+more general actions for the distant future. By forming
+
+detailed plans only for the near future, the problem solver
+
+does not waste time planning for situations that may never
+
+arise; by sketching out the entire plan, details for the
+
+near-term can be based on a long-term view. As problem
+
+solving proceeds, the plan must be monitored (and repaired
+
+when necessary), and new actions for the near future are
+
+added incrementally. Thus, plan formation, monitoring,
+
+modification, and execution are interleaved [1,3,8,12,13].
+
+We have implemented and evaluated our new
+
+mechanisms in a vehicle monitoring problem solver, where
+
+they augment previously developed control mechanisms. In
+
+the next section, we briefly describe the vehicle monitoring
+
+problem solver. Section 3 provides details about how a
+
+high-level view is formed as an abstraction hierarchy. The
+
+representation of a plan and the techniques to form and
+
+dynamically modify plans are presented in Section 4. In
+
+Section 5, experimental results are discussed to illustrate
+
+the benefits and the costs of the new mechanisms. Finally,
+
+Section 6 recapitulates our approach and describes how the
+
+new mechanisms can improve real-time responsiveness and
+
+can lead to improved cooperation in a distributed problem
+
+solving network.
+
+58 / SCIENCE
+
+From: AAAI-86 Proceedings. Copyright ©1986, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.
+
+### Page 2
+
+II A VEHICLE MONITORING
+
+PROBLEM SOLVER
+
+A vehicle monitoring problem solving node in the
+
+Distributed Vehicle Monitoring Testbed (DVMT) applies
+
+simplified signal processing knowledge to acoustically
+
+sensed data in an attempt to identify, locate, and track
+
+patterns of vehicles moving through a two-dimensional
+
+space [ll]. Each node has a blackboard-based problem
+
+solving architecture, with knowledge sources and levels
+
+of abstraction appropriate for vehicle monitoring. A
+
+knowledge source (KS) performs the basic problem
+
+solving tasks of extending and refining hypotheses (partial
+
+solutions). The architecture includes a goal blackboard
+
+and goal processing module, and through goal processing
+
+a node forms knowledge source instantiations (KSIs) that
+
+represent potential KS applications on specific hypotheses
+
+to satisfy certain goals. KSIs are prioritized based both on
+
+the estimated beliefs of the hypotheses each may produce
+
+and on the ratings of the goals each is expected to satisfy.
+
+The goal processing component also recognizes interactions
+
+between goals and adjusts their ratings appropriately; for
+
+example, subgoals of an important goal might have their
+
+ratings boosted. Goal processing can therefore alter KS1
+
+rankings to help focus the node’s problem solving actions
+
+on achieving the subgoals of important goals [2].
+
+A hypothesis is characterized by one or more time-
+
+locutions (where the vehicle was at discrete sensed times),
+
+by an event-class (classifying the frequency or vehicle
+
+type), by a belief (the confidence in the accuracy of
+
+the hypothesis), and by a blackboard-level (depending on
+
+the amount of processing that has been done on the
+
+data). Synthesis KSs take one or more hypotheses at one
+
+blackboard-level and use event-class constraints to generate
+
+hypotheses at the next higher blackboard-level. Extension
+
+KSs take several hypotheses at a given blackboard-level and
+
+use vehicle movement constraints (maximum velocities and
+
+accelerations) to form hypotheses at the same blackboard-
+
+level that incorporate more time-locations.
+
+For example, in Figure 1 each blackboard-level is
+
+represented as a surface with spatial dimensions z and y.
+
+At blackboard-level s (signal level) there are 10 hypotheses,
+
+each incorporating a single time-location (the time is
+
+indicated for each). Two of these hypotheses have been
+
+synthesized to blackboard-level g (group level). In turn,
+
+these hypotheses have been synthesized to blackboard-level
+
+v (vehicle level) where an extension KS has connected them
+
+into a single track hypothesis, indicated graphically by
+
+connecting the two locations. Problem solving proceeds
+
+from this point by having the goal processing component
+
+form goals (and subgoals) to extend this track to time
+
+3 and instantiating KSIs to achieve these goals. The
+
+highest rated pending KS1 is then invoked and triggers the
+
+appropriate KS to execute. New hypotheses are posted
+
+on the blackboard, causing further goal processing and the
+
+cycle repeats until an acceptable track incorporating data
+
+at each time is created. One of the potential solutions is
+
+indicated at blackboard-level v in Figure 1.
+
+III A HIGH-LEVEL VIEW FOR
+
+PLANNING AND CONTROL
+
+Planning about how to solve a problem often requires
+
+viewing the problem from a different perspective. For
+
+example, a chemist generally develops a plan for deriving a
+
+new compound not by entering a laboratory and envisioning
+
+possible sequences of actions but by representing the
+
+Blackboard-levels are represented as surfaces containing
+
+hypotheses (with associated sensed times). Hypotheses at
+
+higher blackboard-levels are synthesized from lower level
+
+data, and a potential solution is illustrated with a dotted
+
+track at blackboard-level v.
+
+Figure 1: An Example Problem Solving State.
+
+problem with symbols and using these symbols to
+
+hypothesize possible derivation paths. By transforming
+
+the problem into this representation, the chemist can more
+
+easily sketch out possible solutions and spot reactions that
+
+lead nowhere, thereby improving the decisions about the
+
+actions to take in the laboratory.
+
+A blackboard-based, vehicle monitoring problem solver
+
+requires the same capabilities. Transforming the node’s
+
+problem solving state into a suitable representation
+
+for planning requires domain knowledge to recognize
+
+relationships-in particular, long-term relationships-in
+
+the data. This transformation is accomplished by
+
+incrementally clustering data into increasingly abstract
+
+groups based on the attributes of the data: the hypotheses
+
+can be clustered based on one attribute, the resulting
+
+clusters can be further clustered based on another attribute,
+
+and so on. The transformed representation is thus a
+
+hierarchy of clusters where higher-level clusters abstract
+
+the informat ion of lower-level clusters. More or less
+
+detailed views of the problem solving situation are found
+
+by accessing the appropriate level of this abstraction
+
+hierarchy, and clusters at the same level are linked by
+
+their relationships (such as having adjacent time frames
+
+or blackboard-levels, or having nearby spatial regions).
+
+We have implemented a set of knowledge-based
+
+clustering mechanisms for vehicle monitoring, each of which
+
+takes clusters at one level as input and forms output clusters
+
+at a new level. Each mechanism uses different domain-
+
+dependent relationships, including:
+
+temporal relationships: the output cluster
+
+combines any input clusters that represent data in
+
+adjacent time frames and that are spatially near
+
+enough to satisfy simple constraints about how far
+
+a vehicle can travel in one time unit.
+
+spatial relationships: the output cluster combines
+
+any input clusters that represent data for the same
+
+time frames and that are spatially near enough to
+
+represent sensor noise around a single vehicle.
+
+blackboard-level relationships: the output
+
+cluster combines any input clusters that represent the
+
+same data at different blackboard-levels.
+
+Planning: AUTOMATED REASONING / 59
+
+### Page 3
+
+l event-class relationships: the output cluster
+
+combines any input clusters that represent data with
+
+the same event-class (type of vehicle).
+
+l belief relationships: the output cluster combines
+
+input clusters representing data with similar beliefs.
+
+The abstraction hierarchy is formed by sequentially
+
+applying the clustering mechanisms. The order of
+
+application depends on the bias of the problem solver:
+
+since the order of clustering affects which relationships are
+
+most emphasized at the highest levels of the abstraction
+
+hierarchy, the problem solver should cluster to emphasize
+
+the relationships it expects to most significantly influence
+
+its control decisions. Issues in representing bias and
+
+modifying inappropriate bias are discussed elsewhere [4].
+
+To illustrate clustering, consider the clustering sequence
+
+in Figure 2, which has been simplified by ignoring many
+
+cluster attributes such as event-classes, beliefs, and volume
+
+of data and pending work; only a cluster’s blackboard-
+
+levels (a cluster can incorporate more than one) and its
+
+time-regions (indicating a region rather than a specific
+
+location for a certain time) are discussed. Initially, the
+
+problem solving state is nearly identical to that in Figure 1,
+
+except that for each hypothesis in Figure 1 there are
+
+now two hypotheses at the same sensed time and slightly
+
+different locations. In Figure 2a, each cluster CL (where 1
+
+is the level in the abstraction hierarchy) corresponds to
+
+a single hypothesis, and the graphical representation of
+
+the clusters mirrors a representation of the hypotheses.
+
+By clustering based on blackboard-level, a second level
+
+of the abstraction hierarchy is formed with 19 clusters
+
+(Figure 2b). As is shown graphically, this clustering
+
+‘Lcollapses” the blackboard by combining clusters at the
+
+previous abstraction level that correspond to the same
+
+data at different blackboard-levels. In Figure 2c, clustering
+
+by spatial relationships forms 9 clusters. Clusters at the
+
+second abstraction level whose regions were close spatially
+
+for a given sensed time are combined into a single cluster.
+
+Finally, clustering by temporal relationships in Figure 2d
+
+combines any clusters at the third abstraction level that
+
+correspond to adjacent sensed times and whose regions
+
+satisfy weak vehicle velocity constraints.
+
+The highest level clusters (Figure 2d) indicate four
+
+rough estimates of potential solutions: a vehicle moving
+
+through regions R1R2R3R4&&, through Ri&R&RkRL,
+
+through R~R!&R4R5RG, or through R\RLR3R4Rk.Rk. The
+
+problem solver could use this view to improve its control
+
+decisions. For example, this view allows the problem solver
+
+to recognize that all potential solutions pass through Rs
+
+at sensed time 3 and R4 at sensed time 4. By boosting
+
+the ratings of KSIs in these regions, the problem solver can
+
+focus on building high-level results that are most likely to
+
+be part of any eventual solution.
+
+In some respects, the formation of the abstraction
+
+hierarchy is akin to a rough pass at solving the problem,
+
+as indeed it must be if it is to indicate where the
+
+possible solutions may lie. However, abstraction differs
+
+from problem solving because it ignores many important
+
+constraints needed to solve the problem. Forming the
+
+abstraction hierarchy is thus much less computationally
+
+expensive than problem solving, and results in a
+
+representation that is too inexact as a problem solution
+
+but is suitable for control. For example, although the
+
+high-level clusters in Figure 2d indicate that there are four
+
+potential solutions, three of these are actually impossible
+
+based on the more stringent constraints applied by the
+
+KSs. The high-level view afforded by the abstraction
+
+hierarchy therefore does not provide answers but only rough
+
+indications about the long-term promise of various areas
+
+of the solution space, and this additional knowledge can
+
+be employed by the problem solver to make better control
+
+decisions as it chooses its next task.
+
+IV INCREMENTAL PLANNING
+
+The planner further improves control decisions by
+
+intelligently ordering the problem solving actions. Even
+
+with the high-level view, uncertainty remains about
+
+whether each long-term goal can actually be achieved,
+
+about whether an action that might contribute to achieving
+
+a long-term goal will actually do so (since long-term goals
+
+Cluster
+
+Time-BB-
+
+regions levels
+
+(hY1)(252Y2) 21
+
+(1XlYI) 9
+
+(2X2Y2) 9
+
+Subclusters/X /‘:
+
+-
+
+43 (6xjyg’) 4.-
+
+(4
+
+Cluster Time-BB-Subclusters
+
+regions levels
+
+C24 (~~~Y1)(~~2Y2)~~~~~c:,c~,c~,c~,c~
+
+%
+
+1
+
+C6
+
+4 d
+
+CL (62;‘~;‘) s 43
+
+(b)
+
+Cluster
+
+Time-BB-
+
+regions levels Subclusters
+
+Cluster
+
+Time-BB-
+
+regions fevels Subclusters
+
+(1h)(2&)(3&) 3 3 3
+
+“: (4&)(5&)(6R,) ‘jg’ ’
+
+Cl, C.i>Cb,
+
+c;, c;
+
+wvP~:H3~3)
+
+3 3 3
+
+” (4Rzr)(5R;)(6R;) ’
+
+c2, c3, Cd>
+
+3 3 3
+
+c ~5> c 7, %I
+
+* (4
+
+A sequence of clustering steps are illustrated both with
+
+tables (left) and graphically (right). cf represents cluster
+
+z at level 1 of the abstraction hierarchy. initial clusters
+
+(a), are clustered by blackboard-level (b), then by spatial
+
+proximity (c), and finally by temporal relationships (d).
+
+Figure 2: Incremental Clustering Example.
+
+60 i SCIENCE
+
+### Page 4
+
+are inexact), and about how to most economically form a
+
+desired result (since the same result can often be derived
+
+in different ways). The planner reduces control uncertainty
+
+in two ways. First, it orders the intermediate goals for
+
+achieving long-term goals so that the results of working
+
+on earlier intermediate goals can diminish the uncertainty
+
+about how (and whether) to work on later intermediate
+
+goals. Second, the planner forms a detailed sequence of
+
+steps to achieve the next intermediate goal: it determines
+
+the least costly way to form a result to satisfy the goal. The
+
+planner thus sketches out long-term intentions as sequences
+
+of intermediate goals, and forms detailed plans about the
+
+best way to achieve the next int)ermediate goal.
+
+A long-term vehicle monitoring goal to generate a track
+
+consisting of several time-locations can be reduced into
+
+a series of intermediate goals, where each intermediate
+
+goal represents a desire to extend the track satisfying the
+
+previous intermediate goal into a new time-location.* To
+
+order the intermediate goals, the planner currently uses
+
+three domain-independent heuristics:
+
+Heuristic-l Prefer common intermediate goals. Some
+
+intermediate goals may be common to several long-
+
+term goals. If uncertain about which of these long-
+
+term goals to pursue, the planner can postpone its
+
+decision by working on common intermediate goals
+
+and then can use these results to better distinguish
+
+between the long-term goals. This heuristic is a
+
+variation of least-commitment 1141.
+
+Heuristic-2 Prefer less costly intermediate goals. Some
+
+intermediate goals may be more costly to achieve
+
+than others. The planner can quickly estimate the
+
+relative costs of developing results in different areas
+
+by comparing their corresponding clusters at a high
+
+level of the abstraction hierarchy: the number of
+
+event-classes and the spatial range of the data in
+
+a cluster roughly indicates how many potentially
+
+competing hypotheses might have to be produced.
+
+This heuristic causes the planner to develop results
+
+more quickly. If these results are creditable they
+
+provide predictive information, otherwise the planner
+
+can abandon the plan after a minimum of effort.
+
+Heuristic-3 Prefer discriminative intermediate goals. If
+
+the planner must discriminate between possible long-
+
+term goals, it should prefer to work on intermediate
+
+goals that most effectively indicate the relative
+
+promise of each long-term goal. When no common
+
+intermediate goals remain this heuristic triggers work
+
+where the long-term goals differ most.
+
+These heuristics are interdependent. For example, common
+
+intermediate goals may also be more cost,ly, as in one of the
+
+experiments described in the next section. The relative
+
+influence of each heuristic can be modified parametrically.
+
+Having identified a sequence of intermediate goals to
+
+achieve one or more long-term goals, t,he planner can reduce
+
+its uncertainty about how to satisfy these intermediate
+
+goals by planning in more detail. If the planner possesses
+
+models of the KSs that roughly indicate both the costs
+
+of a particular action and the general characteristics of
+
+*In general terms. an intermediate goal in any interpretation t.ask
+
+is to process a new piece of information and to integrate it into the
+
+current partial interpretation.
+
+the output of that action (based on the characteristics
+
+of the input), then the planner can search for the best
+
+of the alternative ways to satisfy an intermediate goal.
+
+We have provided the planner for our vehicle monitoring
+
+problem solver with coarse KS models that allow it to make
+
+reasonable predictions about short sequences of actions to
+
+find the sequences that best achieve intermediate goals.“
+
+To reduce the effort spent on planning, the planner only
+
+forms detailed plans for the next intermediate goal: since
+
+the results of earlier intermediate goals influence decisions
+
+about how and whether to pursue subsequent intermediate
+
+goals, the planner avoids expending effort forming detailed
+
+plans that may never be used.
+
+Given the abstraction hierarchy in Figure 2, the planner
+
+recognizes that achieving each of the four long-term goals
+
+(Figure 2d) entails intermediate goals of tracking the
+
+vehicle through these regions. Influenced predominantly
+
+by Heuristic-l, the planner decides to initially work toward
+
+all four long-term goals at the same time by achieving
+
+their common intermediate goals. A detailed sequence of
+
+actions to drive the data in R3 at level s to level v is then
+
+formulated. The planner creates a plan whose attributes
+
+their values in this example) are:
+
+the long-term goals the plan contributes to achieving
+
+(in the example, there are four);
+
+the predicted, underspecified time-regions of the
+
+eventual solution (in the example, the time regions
+
+are (1 RlorR:)(2 Rzor$)(3 &)...);
+
+the predicted vehicle type(s) of the eventual solution
+
+(in the example, there is only one type);
+
+the order of intermediate goals (in the example, begin
+
+with sensed time 3, then time 4, and then work both
+
+backward to earlier times and forward to later times);
+
+the blackboard-level for tracking, depending on the
+
+available KSs (in the example, this is level v);
+
+a record of past actions, updated as actions are taken
+
+(initially empty);
+
+a sequence of the specific actions to take in the short-
+
+term (in the example, the detailed plan is to drive
+
+data in region R3 at level s to level v);
+
+a rating based on the number of long-term goals being
+
+worked on, the effort already invested in the plan,
+
+the average ratings of the KSIs corresponding to the
+
+detailed short-t*erm actions, the average belief of the
+
+partial solutions previously formed by the plan, and
+
+the predicted beliefs of the partial solutions to be
+
+formed by the detailed activities.
+
+As each predicted action is consecutively pursued, the
+
+record of past actions is updated and the actual results of
+
+the action are compared with the general characteristics
+
+predicted by the planner. When these agree, the next
+
+action in the detailed short-term sequence is performed
+
+if there is one, otherwise the planner develops another
+
+detailed sequence for the next intermediate goal. In our
+
+example, after forming results in R3 at a high blackboard-
+
+level, the planner forms a sequence of actions to do the
+
+same in R4. When the actual and predicted results disagree
+
+**If the predict,ecl cost of satisfying an intermediate goal deviates
+
+substantially from the crude estimate based on the abstract view, the
+
+ordering of the intermediate goals may need to be revised.
+
+Planning: AUTOMATED REASONING / 6 1
+
+### Page 5
+
+(since the planner’s models of the KSs may be inaccurate),
+
+the planner must modify the plan by introducing additional
+
+actions that can get the plan back on track. If no such
+
+actions exist, the plan is aborted and the next highest rated
+
+plan is pursued. If the planner exhausts its plans before
+
+forming a complete solution, it reforms the abstraction
+
+hierarchy (incorporating new information and/or clustering
+
+to stress different problem attributes) and attempts to
+
+find new plans. Throughout this paper, we assume for
+
+simplicity that no important new information arrives after
+
+the abstraction hierarchy is formed; when part of a more
+
+dynamic environment, the node will update its abstraction
+
+hierarchy and plans with such information.
+
+The planner thus generates, monitors, and revises plans,
+
+and interleaves these activities with plan execution. In
+
+our example, the common intermediate goals are eventually
+
+satisfied and a separate plan must be formed for each of the
+
+alternative ways to proceed. After finding a partial track
+
+combining data from sensed times 3 and 4, the planner
+
+decides to extend this track backward to sensed time 2. The
+
+long-term goals indicate work in either Rz or RL. A plan
+
+is generated for each possibility, and the more highly rated
+
+of these plans is followed. Note, however, that the partial
+
+track already developed can provide predictive information
+
+that, through goal processing, can increase the rating of
+
+work in one of these regions and not the other. In this
+
+case, constraints that limit a vehicle’s turning rate are used
+
+when goal processing (subgoaling) to increase the ratings
+
+of KSI’s in R&, thus making the plan to work there next
+
+more highly rated.*
+
+The planner and goal processing thus work in tandem
+
+to improve problem solving performance. The goal
+
+processing uses a detailed view of local interactions
+
+between hypotheses, goals, and KSJs to differentiate
+
+between alternative actions. Goal processing can be
+
+computationally wasteful, however, when it is invoked
+
+based on strictly local criteria. Without the knowledge of
+
+long-term reasons for building a hypothesis, the problem
+
+solver simply forms goals to extend and refine the
+
+hypothesis in all possible ways. These goals are further
+
+processed (subgoaled) if they are at certain blackboard-
+
+levels, again regardless of any long-term justification for
+
+doing so. With its long-term view, the planner can
+
+drastically reduce the amount of goal processing. As it
+
+pursues, monitors, and repairs plans, the planner identifies
+
+areas where goals and subgoals could improve its decisions
+
+and selectively invokes goal processing to form only those
+
+goals that it needs. As the experimental results in the next
+
+section indicate, a planner with the ability to control goal
+
+processing can dramatically reduce overhead.
+
+V EXPERIMENTS IN INCREMENTAL
+
+PLANNING
+
+We illustrate the advantages and the costs of our
+
+planner in several problem solving situations, shown in
+
+Figure 3. Situation A is the same as in Figure 2 except
+
+that each region only has one hypothesis. Also note that
+
+the data in the common regions is most weakly sensed. In
+
+situation B, no areas are common to all possible solutions,
+
+and issues in plan monitoring and repair are therefore
+
+stressed. Finally, situation C has many potential solutions,
+
+where each appears equally likely from a high-level view,
+
+‘In fact the turns to RZ and Rk exceed these constraints, SO the
+
+only track that satisfies the constraints is R~R~&R~&.&.
+
+d14 4
+
+L 4 -
+
+solution = d:dad3d4dsdG
+
+A
+
+solutions = dldzdaddds,
+
+d’d’d’d’d’1 2 3 4 5
+
+C
+
+solutions = dld2dsd4d5,
+
+d;d;d&d;d;
+
+B
+
+d, = data for sensed time i,
+
+l = strongly sensed,
+
+l = moderately sensed,
+
+0 = weakly sensed
+
+Three problem solving situations are displayed. The pos-
+
+sible tracks (found in the abstraction hierarchy) are indi-
+
+cated by connecting the related data points, and the ac-
+
+ceptable solution(s) for each situation are given.
+
+Figure 3: The Experimental Problem Situations.
+
+When evaluating the new mechanisms, we consider
+
+two important factors: how well do they improve control
+
+decisions (reduce the number of incorrect decisions), and
+
+how much additional overhead do they introduce to achieve
+
+this improvement. Since each control decision causes the
+
+invocation of a KSI, the first factor is measured by counting
+
+KSIs invoked-the fewer the KSIs, the better the control
+
+decisions. The second factor is measured as the actual
+
+computation time (runtime) required by a node to solve
+
+a problem, representing the combined costs of problem
+
+solving and control computation.
+
+The experimental results are summarized in Table 1. To
+
+determine the effects of the new mechanisms, each problem
+
+situation was solved both with and without them, and for
+
+each case the number of KSIs and the computation time
+
+were measured. We also measured the number of goals
+
+generated during problem solving to illustrate how control
+
+overhead can be reduced by having the planner control the
+
+goal processing.
+
+Experiments El and E2 illustrate how the new
+
+mechanisms can dramatically reduce both the number of
+
+KSIs invoked and the computation time needed to solve
+
+the problem in situation A. Without these mechanisms
+
+(El), the pro blem solver begins with the most highly
+
+sensed data (di, da, db, and d:). This incorrect data
+
+actually corresponds to noise and may have been formed
+
+due to sensor errors or echoes in the sensed area. The
+
+problem solver attempts to combine this data through
+
+ds and da but fails because of turning constraints, and
+
+then it uses the results from d3 and d4 to eventually
+
+work its way back out to the moderately sensed correct
+
+data. With the new mechanisms (E2), problem solving
+
+begins at d3 and da and, because the track formed (d3d4)
+
+triggers goal processing to stimulate work on the moderate
+
+data, the solution is found much more quickly (in fact, in
+
+62 /SCIENCE
+
+### Page 6
+
+Expt Situ Plan.3 KSIs Rtime Goals Comments
+
+El A no 58 17.2 262 -
+
+E2
+
+E3
+
+2 yes 24 8.1 49 -
+
+yes 32 19.4 203 1
+
+E4 A’ no 58 19.9 284 2
+
+E5 A’ yes 64 17.3 112 2,3
+
+E6 A’ yes 38 16.5 71 214
+
+no 73 21.4 371 -
+
+yes 45 11.8 60 -
+
+E9 B yes 45 20.6 257 1
+
+El0 C no 85 29.8 465
+
+El1 C yes 44 19.3 75 -
+
+Situ:
+
+Plan?:
+
+KSIs:
+
+Rtime:
+
+Goals:
+
+Comments:
+
+Legend
+
+The problem situation.
+
+Are the new planning mechanisms used?
+
+Number of KSIs invoked to find solution.
+
+The total CPU runtime to find solution lin minutes).
+
+The number of goals formed and processed.
+
+I
+
+Additional asoects of the exneriment:
+
+1 = independint goal procesiing and planning
+
+2 = noise in da and d4
+
+3 = Heuristic-l predominates
+
+4 = Heuristic-2 predominates
+
+Table 1: Summary of Experimental Results.
+
+optimal time 151). The planner controls goal processing
+
+to generate and process only those goals that further the
+
+plan; if goal processing is done independently of the planner
+
+(E3), the overhead of the planner coupled with the only
+
+slightly diminished goal processing overhead (the number
+
+of goals is only modestly reduced, comparing E3 with El)
+
+nullifies the computation time saved on actual problem
+
+solving. Moreover, because earlier, less constrained goals
+
+are subgoaled, control decisions deteriorate and more KSIs
+
+must be invoked.
+
+The improvements in experiment E2 were due to the
+
+initial work done in the common areas d3 and d4 triggered
+
+by Heuristic-l. Situation A’ is identical to situation A
+
+except that areas d3 and d4 contain numerous competing
+
+hypotheses. If the planner initially works in those areas
+
+(E5), then many KSIs are required to develop all of these
+
+hypotheses-fewer KSIs are invoked without planning at
+
+all (E4). However, by estimating the relative costs of the
+
+alternative intermediate goals, the planner can determine
+
+that d3 and dq, although twice as common as the other
+
+areas, are likely to be more than twice as costly to work
+
+on. Heuristic-2 overrides Heuristic-l, and a plan is formed
+
+to develop the other areas first and then use these results to
+
+more tightly control processing in d3 and dq. The number
+
+of KSIs and the computation time are thus reduced (E6).
+
+In situation B, two solutions must be found,
+
+corresponding to two vehicles moving in parallel. Without
+
+the planner (EV), problem solving -begins with the most
+
+strongly sensed data (the noise in the center of the area)
+
+and works outward from there. Only after many incorrect
+
+decisions to form short tracks that cannot be incorporated
+
+into longer solutions does the problem solver generate the
+
+two solutions. The high-level view of this situation, as
+
+provided by the abstraction hierarchy, allows the planner
+
+in experiment E8 to recognize six possible alternative
+
+solutions, four of which pass through di (the most common
+
+area). The planner initially forms plani, pZan2, and
+
+plans, beginning in dg, ds, and d$ respectively (Heuristic-l
+
+triggers the preference for dz; and subsequently Heuristic-3
+
+indicates a preference for d3 and d$). Since it covers the
+
+most long-term goals, plan1 is pursued first-a reasonable
+
+strategy because effort is expended on the solution path if
+
+the plan succeeds, and if the plan fails then the largest
+
+possible number of candidate solutions are eliminated.
+
+After developing di, pl an1 is divided into two plans to
+
+combine this data with either d2 or d\. One of these equally
+
+rated plans is chosen arbitrarily and forms the track dzd’,‘,
+
+which then must be combined with di. However, because
+
+of vehicle turning constraints, only dldz rather than dld2dg
+
+is formed. The plan monitor flags an error, an attempt
+
+to repair the plan fails, and the plan aborts. Similarly,
+
+the plan to form d\did!J eventually aborts. Plan2 is then
+
+invoked, and after developing d3 it finds that d2 has already
+
+been developed (by the first aborted plan). However, the
+
+plan monitor detects that the predicted result, dzd3 was
+
+not formed, and the plan is repaired by inserting a new
+
+action that takes advantage of the previous formation of
+
+dldE to generate dld2d3. The predictions are then more
+
+than satisfied, and the plan continues until a solution is
+
+formed. The plan to form the other solution is similarly
+
+successfully completed. Finally, note once again that, if the
+
+planner does not control goal processing (E9), unnecessary
+
+overhead costs are incurred, although this time the control
+
+decisions (KSIs) are not degraded.
+
+Situation C also represents two vehicles moving in
+
+parallel, but this time they are closer and the data points
+
+are all equally well sensed. Without the new mechanisms
+
+(ElO), control decisions in this situation have little to
+
+go on: from a local perspective, one area looks as good
+
+as another. The problem solver thus develops the data
+
+points in parallel, then forms all tracks between pairs of
+
+points, then combines these into larger tracks, until finally
+
+it forms the two solution tracks. The planner uses the
+
+possible solutions from the abstraction hierarchy to focus
+
+on generating longer tracks sooner, and by monitoring
+
+its actions to extend its tracks, the planner more quickly
+
+recognizes failed extensions and redirects processing toward
+
+more promising extensions. The new mechanisms thus
+
+improve control decisions (reduce the KSIs) without adding
+
+excessive computational overhead (El 1). However, the
+
+planner must consider 32 possible solutions in this case and
+
+does incur significant overhead. For complex situations, the
+
+planner may need additional control mechanisms to more
+
+flexibly manage the many possibilities.
+
+VI THE IMPLICATIONS OF
+
+ABSTRACTION AND PLANNING
+
+We have described and evaluated mechanisms for
+
+improving control decisions in a blackboard-based vehicle
+
+monitoring problem solver. Our approach is to develop
+
+an abstract view of the current problem solving situation
+
+and to use this view to better predict both the long-
+
+term significance and cost of alternative actions. By
+
+interleaving plan generation, monitoring, and repair with
+
+plan execution, the mechanisms lead to more versatile
+
+planning, where actions to achieve the system’s (problem
+
+solving) goals and actions to satisfy the planner’s needs
+
+(resolve its own uncertainty) are integrated into a single
+
+plan. Although incremental planning may be inappropriate
+
+in domains where constraints must be propagated to
+
+determine an entire detailed plan before acting (141, the
+
+approach we have described is effective in unpredictable
+
+domains where plans about the near future cannot depend
+
+on future states that may never arrive.
+
+Planning: AUTOMATED REASONING / 63
+
+### Page 7
+
+This approach can be generally applied to blackboard-
+
+based problem solvers. Abstraction requires exploiting
+
+relationships in the data-relationships that are used by the
+
+knowledge sources as well-such as allowable combinations
+
+of speech sounds [7] or how various errands are related
+
+spatially or temporally 191.’ Planning requires simple
+
+models of KSs, recognition of intermediate goals (to extend
+
+a phrase in speech, to add another errand to a plan),
+
+and heuristics to order the intermediate goals. We believe
+
+that many if not all blackboard-based problem solvers
+
+(and more generally, problem solvers whose long-term goals
+
+depend on their current situation) could incorporate similar
+
+abstraction and planning mechanisms to improve their
+
+control decisions.
+
+The benefits of this approach extend beyond the
+
+examples demonstrated in this paper. The more global
+
+view of the problem provided by the abstraction hierarchy
+
+helps the problem solver decide whether a goal is adequately
+
+satisfied by indicating areas where improvements are
+
+possible and potentially worthwhile. The ability to
+
+enumerate and compare possible solutions helps the
+
+problem solver decide when a solution is the best of the
+
+possible alternatives, and so, when to terminate activity.
+
+These mechanisms also help a problem solver to work
+
+under real-time constraints. The KS models provide
+
+estimates of the cost (in time) to achieve the next
+
+intermediate goal, and by generalizing this estimate to the
+
+other intermediate goals, the time needs for for the entire
+
+plan can be crudely predicted. With this prediction, the
+
+planner can modify the plan (replace expensive actions with
+
+actions that inexpensively achieve less exact results) until
+
+the predicted time costs satisfy the constraints.
+
+Finally, planning and prediction are vital to cooperation
+
+among problem solvers. A network of problem solvers
+
+that are cooperatively solving a single problem could
+
+communicate about their plans, indicating what partial
+
+solutions they expect to generate and when, to better
+
+coordinate their activities [4,5,6]. In essence, the
+
+problem solvers incrementally form a distributed plan
+
+together. The inherent unpredictability of actions and
+
+interactions in multi-agent domains makes incremental
+
+planning particularly appropriate in distributed problem
+
+solving applications.
+
+We are currently augmenting our mechanisms with
+
+capabilities to perform effectively in more dynamic
+
+environments with multiple problem solvers. The
+
+mechanisms, though they address issues previously
+
+neglected, should also be integrated with other control
+
+techniques (such as a blackboard architecture for control
+
+191) to be fully flexible, as seen in experiment. Eli.
+
+Based on our experiences, we anticipate that the
+
+further development of these mechanisms for planning in
+
+blackboard-based problem solvers will greatly enhance the
+
+performance of these problem solving systems, will lead to
+
+improved real-time response and to better coordination in
+
+distributed problem solving networks, and will increase our
+
+understanding of planning and action in highly uncertain
+
+domains.
+
+‘In fact, t,he WORD-SEQ knowledge source in the Hearsay-11
+
+speech understanding system essentially is a clustering mechanism: by
+
+applying weak grammatical constraints about pairwise sequences of
+
+words, WORD-SEQ generated approximate word sequences solely to
+
+control the application of the more expensive PARSE KS that. applied
+
+full grammatical constraints about. sequences of arbitrary length [7].
+
+PI R. T. Chien and S. Weissman. Planning and execution
+
+in incompletely specified environments. In Proceedings
+
+of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial
+
+Intelligence, pages 169- 174: August 1975.
+
+REFERENCES
+
+Daniel D. Corkill, Victor R. Lesser, and Eva Hudlicka.
+
+Unifying data-directed and goal-directed control: an
+
+example and experiments. In Proceedings of the Second
+
+National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 143-
+
+147, August 1982.
+
+Randall Davis. A model for planning in a multi-agent en-
+
+vironment: steps toward principles of teamwork. Technical
+
+Report MIT AI Working Paper 217, Massachusetts Institute
+
+of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge,
+
+Massachusetts, June 1981.
+
+[4] Edmund H. Durfee. An Approach to Cooperation: Planning
+
+and Communication in a Distributed Problem Solving
+
+Network. Technical Report 86-09, Department of Computer
+
+and Information Science, University of Massachusetts.
+
+Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, March 1986.
+
+!5j Edmund H. Durfee, Victor R. Lesser, and Daniel D.
+
+Corkill. Coherent Cooperation Among Communicating
+
+Problem Solvers. Technical Report 85-15, Department
+
+of Computer and Information Science, University of
+
+Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, April 1985.
+
+[6] Edmund H. Durfee, Victor R. Lesser, and Daniel D.
+
+Corkill. Increasing coherence in a distributed problem
+
+solving network. In Proceedings of the Ninth International
+
+Joint Conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 1025-1030,
+
+August 1985.
+
+[7] Lee D. Erman, Frederick Hayes-Roth, Victor R. Lesser, and
+
+D. Raj Reddy. The Hearsay-II speech understanding system:
+
+integrating knowledge to resolve uncertainty. Computing
+
+Surveys, 12(2):213-253, June 1980.
+
+18 Jerome A. Feldman and Robert F. Sproull. Decision theory
+
+and artificial intelligence II: the hungry monkey. Cognitive
+
+Science, 1:158-192, 1977.
+
+[9] Barbara Hayes-Roth. A blackboard architecture for control.
+
+Artificial Intelligence, 26:251-321, 1985
+
+[lo] Frederick Hayes-Roth and Victor R. Lesser. Focus of
+
+attention in the Hearsay-II speech understanding system.
+
+In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference
+
+on Artificial Intelligence, pages 27-35, August 1977.
+
+[ll] Victor R. Lesser and Daniel D. Corkill. The distributed
+
+vehicle monitorine: testbed: a tool for investigating
+
+1
+
+distributed proble”m solving networks..4 I Mag‘hzinf:
+
+4(3):15-33, Fall 1983.
+
+Gordon I. McCalla, Larry Reid, and Peter F. Schneider.
+
+Plan creation, plan execution, and knowledge acquisition
+
+in a dynamic microworld. international Journal of Alan-
+
+Machine Studies, 16:89--l 12, 1982.
+
+Earl D. Sacerdoti. Problem solving tactics. In Proceedings
+
+of the Sirth International Joint Conference on Artificial
+
+Intelligence, pages 1077-1085, August 1979.
+
+Mark Stefik. Planning with constraints. Artificial
+
+Intelligence, 16:111-140, 1981.
+
+6t / SCIENCE