qualitative spatial reasoning about sketch maps kenneth forbus, jeffrey usher, vernell champan...
TRANSCRIPT
Qualitative Spatial Reasoning about Sketch
MapsKenneth Forbus, Jeffrey Usher, Vernell Champan
Represented by ilker yildirim
Introduction
• It is not useful to use CAD for early design decisions.
• Sketch maps:
express the key spatial features of a situation,
abstracting away the mass of details that would otherwise obscure the relevant aspects
Intro continues
• For computers to be able to be useful in geospatial reasoning, they need to be able to work with sketch maps.
• Qualitative spatial reasoning is essential for working with sketch maps.
• The article describes the progress they made in geospatial domain-battle reasoning.
The nuSketch Approach to Sketch Understanding
• The shortcomings of typical approaches Today’s statistical recognizers are not very
good. Today’s recognition technologies work best
within small tightly controlled domains. The assumption that sketching is a more natural
interface to legacy software.
cont’d
• Avoid recognition issues by using clever interface design.
• Focus on providing richer visual and conceptual understanding of what is sketched.
cont’d
• The key in the nuSketch approach: in human-to-human sketching, recognition facilitates communication, but recognition is not essential to it.
cont’d
• Work around the limitations of today’s recognition technologies: Use manual segmentation of ink Explicitly identify the concept that is being
depicted.Slightly reduces naturalness of nSB.
Overview of nuSketch Battlespace
• Is designed to help users develop courses of action for land forces.
• It uses a large knowledge base(CYC, DARPA, FIRE)
• nuSketch is used succesfully in several experiments (by AlphaTech and Teknowledge).
Representing Glyphs and Sketches
• The basic unit is glyph, has ink (consists of polyline) and content (conceptual entity).
• The type of the content affects the interpretation of its spatial properties.
• While some basic spatial properties of glyphs are computed, no detailed shape reasoning
cont’d
• A sketch consists of one or more subsketches, a coherent aspect of what is being sketched.
• Logically subsketches are Cyc-style microtheories, local descriptions that are internally consistent.
• Subsketches are composed of layers (friendly COA, enemy COA)
Spatial Processing of Glyphs
• The ink processor: whenever a glyph is added or changed its basic spatial properties are calculated (bb, area..)
• The vector processor is responsible for maintaining Voronoi diagrams.
Spatial Relationships b/w Glyhps
• Computing spatial relationships is crucial. Four kinds of spatial relationships
• Qualitative topological relationships
• Voronoi relationships
• Positional relationships
• Relationships based on local frames of reference.
-Qualitative Topological Relationships
• RCC8 algebra (Cohn 1996) is used.
• RCC8 is appropriate, because it captures basic distinctions (disjoint, touching, inside).
• RCC8 values are calculated for each glyph and all others in the same layer, on demand across layers values are also calculated.
-Voronoi Relationships
• Use Voronoi diagrams to compute a variety of spatial relationships.
• A voronoi diagram consists of edges that are equidistant from a pair of points.
• Again uses Dealuney triangulation, setting glyphs as points.
• Can use several diagrams to capture different notions of proximity.
-Positional Relationships
• Provide qualitative position and orientation relationship.
• Positional relationships between contents are expressed in terms of compass directions.
• A key design choice what positional relationships should be computed. Compute only pairs automatically.
-Other Frames of Reference
• Links to entities based on a local coordinate system.
• Some entities have distinct orientation, even without having a pathlike extent. (militay units have fronts..)
Position Finding
• Use knowledge of the concept of glyphs, combined with spatial reasoning on their ink, to automatically construct regions that satisfy spatial and functional criteria.
• Two important constraints in military spatial reasoning are (1) fields of fire (moutains block fire), (2) visibility (forests)
cont’d
• Position finding technique relies on polygon operations over relevant subset of glyphs.
• Depending on the constraints some are treated as obstacles.
• New regions are constructed by projections from seed locations subject to obstacle constraints.
• Multiple constraints are satisfied by combining the regions constructed for each constraint.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
cont’d
• Domain knowledge indicates the ones to be treated as obstacles.
• Consider concealment to find where enemy can be: Generate new polygons by ray casting.
• Let V be the union of those polygons
• By subtracting regions where enemy cannot be, i.e. lakes, from V to get the result.
Path Finding
• Use theory of trafficability, closer to the heuristic guidelines that we have seen used by commanders.
• Terrains are labeled as SR ‘no go’, R ‘slowly go’, UR, ‘go’.
• Those can be combined, road on the mountain is still UR.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
cont’d
• What is an obstacle can depend on the type of unit moving. (infantry/vehicles, forest/dessert)
• Label regions as SR(obstacle), R(costs more), UR(less cost)..
• Use A* search over the terrain Voroni diagram.• Once a path is found, it is smoothed to reduce its
dependencies.
Example: Hypothesizing Enemy Intent by Analogy
• Inputs are sketch of the precedent and current situations.
• Output: a new layer, which illustrates how, in the current situtation, the enemy might attempt similar to something happened in the precedent time.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Precedent situation
• This precedent is generated by nSB in the usual way, using a template-based interface to describe why the task was succesful.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
• Your unit Bravo sees enemy unit Bait, but knows what happened to Alpha.
• Using nSB you can ask for hypothesized enemy task about the current situation depending on the precedent one.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
How the computations are made
• A key aspect is to use humanlike analogical processing for comparisons, shared similarity constraint.
• By using the cognitive simulation of analogical matching, The Structure Matching Engine (Falkenhainer, Forbur and Gentner 1989), a shared sense of similarity is achieved.
cont’d
• When intent hypothesis are requested, nSB runs SME on two descriptions, both visual and conceptual information.
• Try to catch things like (objectActedOn (:skolem Object-50) Object-64) which
means ‘there is a task that is like Object-50 (the destroy task in the precedent) that is acting on Object-64 (Bravo) in your situation
cont’d
• If such a task is found, SME is invoked again and again to complete the set of constraints.
• A critical component of the set is why the task succeeded. This explanation is used to detect whether the hypothesized task is applicable in the current situation.
cont’d
• After hypothetical task is mined from the analogy, we try to satisfy those constraints in the current situation.
• Use spatial reasoning techniques to solve these constraints and construct the appropriate positions and path.
Other Related Work and Discussion
• Winston (1982) was first to model use of precedents in supporting reasoning; our system uses a more sophisticated model of analogical reasoning.
• AI of games and nuWar being developed by the authors, constitutes the future work of nSB applications.
Questions?