Transcript AILearning
Machine Learning CPSC 315 – Programming Studio Spring 2009 Project 2, Lecture 5 Forms of Learning Supervised Unsupervised Learns from examples which provide desired outputs for given inputs Learns patterns in input data when no specific output values are given Reinforcement Learns by an indication of correctness at end of some reasoning Supervised Learning Must have training data including Inputs (features) to be considered in decision Outputs (correct decisions) for those inputs Inductive reasoning Given a collection of examples of function f, return a function h that approximates f Difficulty: many functions h may be possible Hope to pick function h that generalizes well Tradeoff between the complexity of the hypothesis and the degree of fit to the data Consider data modeling Evaluating Supervised Learning Algorithms Collect a large set of examples (input/output pairs) Divide into two disjoint sets Training data Testing data Apply learning algorithm to training data, generating a hypothesis h Measure % of examples in the testing data that are successfully classified by h (or amount of error for continuously valued outputs) Repeat above steps for different sizes of training sets and different randomly selected training sets Decision Trees Map features of situation to decision Example from a classification of unsafe acts: Decision Trees Relation to rule-based reasoning Features of element used to classify element Features of situation used to select action Used as the basis for many “how to” books How to identify type of snake? How to fix an automobile? Observable features of snake Features related to problem and state of automobile If features are understandable, the decision tree can be used to explain decision Learning Decision Trees Types of Decision Trees Learning a discrete-valued function is classification learning Learning a continuous-valued function is regression Assumption: use of Ockham’s razor will result in more general function Want the smallest decision tree, but that is not tractable Will be satisfied with smallish tree Algorithm for Decision Tree Learning Basic idea Recursively select feature that splits data (most) unevenly No need to use all features Heuristic approach Compare features for their ability to meaningfully split data Feature-value = greatest difference in average output value(s) * size of smaller subset Avoids splitting out individuals too early Unsupervised Learning Used to characterize/explain the key features of a set of data Techniques No notion of desired output Example: identifying fast-food vs. fine-dining restaurants when classes are not known ahead of time Clustering (k means, HAC) Self-Organizing Maps Gaussian Mixture Models More on this topic in Project 3 Reinforcement Learning Many large problems do not have desired outputs that can be used as training data Process Agent (system) performs a set of actions Agent occasionally receives a reward to indicate something went right or penalty to indicate something went wrong Agent has to learn relationship between the model of the situation, the chosen actions, and the rewards/penalties Analogy to Animal Training We cannot tell our pets what is right and wrong in (preconditions, action) pairs Instead we reward good behavior (giving treats) and penalize bad behavior (spraying water or loud noise) Pet has to learn when and where what is appropriate Can result in incorrect interpretations (go in corner vs. go outside) Difficulty: what of the prior/recent actions caused the positive/negative outcome Clicker training for animals is meant to help this Reinforcement Learning in Games Simplest reinforcements Winning or losing Requires lots of games/time to learn Other potential reinforcements Opponent’s action selection Did they minimize your goodness value Modify goodness function to better match their moves Potential to learn an individual’s values/strategy Predicted goodness value vs. observed goodness value This can be used in small (a few moves) or large (a game) time scales Similar to person reflecting on when things went wrong Need to be careful in implementation or else goodness function will return a constant (thus being totally consistent) Modifying a Goodness Function Consider the game of chess Presume goodness function has three linear components BoardControl the difference between the number of board positions that Player1 and Player2 can get a piece to in one move Threatened the difference between the number of opponents pieces threatened (can be taken in one move) between Player1 and Player2 Pieces the difference in the sum of the values of pieces left for Player1 and Player2 where Queen = 10, Rook = 6, Bishop = 3, Knight = 3, Pawn = 1 Modifying a Goodness Function G(s) = a*BoardControl + b*Pieces + c*Threatened Modify coefficients to learn appropriate weighting of terms Quantity of overall modification should relate to difference between predicted goodness and observed goodness Direction of modification to each linear component should be related to whether they are consistent with or disagree with outcome Could modify coefficients using fixed values (e.g. +/- .1) or with values a function of their effect on overall G for the state being considered In theory, such a computer player could recognize that BoardControl is more important early in a game, Pieces is more important mid-game, and Threatened is more important for the end game.