Solution Manual Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach 2nd e....pdf-资料库

kikiane-1366475-16359647291615911000.pdf-第1页.png

第1页 / 共181页

kikiane-1366475-16359647291615911000.pdf-第2页.png

第2页 / 共181页

kikiane-1366475-16359647291615911000.pdf-第3页.png

第3页 / 共181页

kikiane-1366475-16359647291615911000.pdf-第4页.png

第4页 / 共181页

kikiane-1366475-16359647291615911000.pdf-第5页.png

第5页 / 共181页

kikiane-1366475-16359647291615911000.pdf-第6页.png

第6页 / 共181页

kikiane-1366475-16359647291615911000.pdf-第7页.png

第7页 / 共181页

kikiane-1366475-16359647291615911000.pdf-第8页.png

第8页 / 共181页

Instructor’s Manual: Exercise Solutions for Artiﬁcial Intelligence A Modern Approach Second Edition Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Russell, Stuart J. (Stuart Jonathan) Instructor’s solution manual for artiﬁcial intelligence : a modern approach (second edition) / Stuart Russell, Peter Norvig. Includes bibliographical references and index. I. Norvig, Peter. II. Title. 1. Artiﬁcial intelligence Vice President and Editorial Director, ECS: Marcia J. Horton Publisher: Alan R. Apt Associate Editor: Toni Dianne Holm Editorial Assistant: Patrick Lindner Vice President and Director of Production and Manufacturing, ESM: David W. Riccardi Executive Managing Editor: Vince O’Brien Managing Editor: Camille Trentacoste Production Editor: Mary Massey Manufacturing Manager: Trudy Pisciotti Manufacturing Buyer: Lisa McDowell Marketing Manager: Pamela Shaffer 2003 Pearson Education, Inc. c Pearson Prentice Hall Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 All rights reserved. No part of this manual may be reproduced in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. Pearson Prentice Hall R is a trademark of Pearson Education, Inc. Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ISBN: 0-13-090376-0 Pearson Education Ltd., London Pearson Education Australia Pty. Ltd., Sydney Pearson Education Singapore, Pte. Ltd. Pearson Education North Asia Ltd., Hong Kong Pearson Education Canada, Inc., Toronto Pearson Educaci´on de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Pearson Education—Japan, Tokyo Pearson Education Malaysia, Pte. Ltd. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

Preface This Instructor’s Solution Manual provides solutions (or at least solution sketches) for almost all of the 400 exercises in Artiﬁcial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Second Edi- tion). We only give actual code for a few of the programming exercises; writing a lot of code would not be that helpful, if only because we don’t know what language you prefer. In many cases, we give ideas for discussion and follow-up questions, and we try to explain why we designed each exercise. There is more supplementary material that we want to offer to the instructor, but we have decided to do it through the medium of the World Wide Web rather than through a CD or printed Instructor’s Manual. The idea is that this solution manual contains the material that must be kept secret from students, but the Web site contains material that can be updated and added to in a more timely fashion. The address for the web site is: http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu and the address for the online Instructor’s Guide is: http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/instructors.html There you will ﬁnd: Instructions on how to join the aima-instructors discussion list. We strongly recom- mend that you join so that you can receive updates, corrections, notiﬁcation of new versions of this Solutions Manual, additional exercises and exam questions, etc., in a timely manner. Source code for programs from the text. We offer code in Lisp, Python, and Java, and point to code developed by others in C++ and Prolog. Programming resources and supplemental texts. Figures from the text; for overhead transparencies. Terminology from the index of the book. Other courses using the book that have home pages on the Web. You can see example syllabi and assignments here. Please do not put solution sets for AIMA exercises on public web pages! AI Education information on teaching introductory AI courses. Other sites on the Web with information on AI. Organized by chapter in the book; check this for supplemental material. We welcome suggestions for new exercises, new environments and agents, etc. The book belongs to you, the instructor, as much as us. We hope that you enjoy teaching from it, that these supplemental materials help, and that you will share your supplements and experi- ences with other instructors. iii

Solutions for Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 a. Dictionary deﬁnitions of intelligence talk about “the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge” or “the faculty of thought and reason” or “the ability to comprehend and proﬁt from experience.” These are all reasonable answers, but if we want something quantiﬁable we would use something like “the ability to apply knowledge in order to perform better in an environment.” b. We deﬁne artiﬁcial intelligence as the study and construction of agent programs that perform well in a given environment, for a given agent architecture. c. We deﬁne an agent as an entity that takes action in response to percepts from an envi- ronment. 1.2 See the solution for exercise 26.1 for some discussion of potential objections. The probability of fooling an interrogator depends on just how unskilled the interroga- tor is. One entrant in the 2002 Loebner prize competition (which is not quite a real Turing Test) did fool one judge, although if you look at the transcript, it is hard to imagine what that judge was thinking. There certainly have been examples of a chatbot or other online agent fooling humans. For example, see See Lenny Foner’s account of the Julia chatbot at foner.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/Julia/. We’d say the chance today is something like 10%, with the variation depending more on the skill of the interrogator rather than the program. In 50 years, we expect that the entertainment industry (movies, video games, com- mercials) will have made sufﬁcient investments in artiﬁcial actors to create very credible impersonators. 1.3 The 2002 Loebner prize (www.loebner.net) went to Kevin Copple’s program ELLA. It consists of a prioritized set of pattern/action rules: if it sees a text string matching a certain pattern, it outputs the corresponding response, which may include pieces of the current or past input. It also has a large database of text and has the Wordnet online dictionary. It is therefore using rather rudimentary tools, and is not advancing the theory of AI. It is provid- ing evidence on the number and type of rules that are sufﬁcient for producing one type of conversation. 1.4 No. It means that AI systems should avoid trying to solve intractable problems. Usually, this means they can only approximate optimal behavior. Notice that humans don’t solve NP- complete problems either. Sometimes they are good at solving speciﬁc instances with a lot of 1

2 Chapter 1. Introduction structure, perhaps with the aid of background knowledge. AI systems should attempt to do the same. 1.5 No. IQ test scores correlate well with certain other measures, such as success in college, but only if they’re measuring fairly normal humans. The IQ test doesn’t measure everything. A program that is specialized only for IQ tests (and specialized further only for the analogy part) would very likely perform poorly on other measures of intelligence. See The Mismea- sure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould, Norton, 1981 or Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice by Howard Gardner, Basic Books, 1993 for more on IQ tests, what they measure, and what other aspects there are to “intelligence.” 1.6 Just as you are unaware of all the steps that go into making your heart beat, you are also unaware of most of what happens in your thoughts. You do have a conscious awareness of some of your thought processes, but the majority remains opaque to your consciousness. The ﬁeld of psychoanalysis is based on the idea that one needs trained professional help to analyze one’s own thoughts. 1.7 a. (ping-pong) A reasonable level of proﬁciency was achieved by Andersson’s robot (An- dersson, 1988). b. (driving in Cairo) No. Although there has been a lot of progress in automated driving, all such systems currently rely on certain relatively constant clues: that the road has shoulders and a center line, that the car ahead will travel a predictable course, that cars will keep to their side of the road, and so on. To our knowledge, none are able to avoid obstacles or other cars or to change lanes as appropriate; their skills are mostly conﬁned to staying in one lane at constant speed. Driving in downtown Cairo is too unpredictable for any of these to work. c. (shopping at the market) No. No robot can currently put together the tasks of moving in a crowded environment, using vision to identify a wide variety of objects, and grasping the objects (including squishable vegetables) without damaging them. The component pieces are nearly able to handle the individual tasks, but it would take a major integra- tion effort to put it all together. d. (shopping on the web) Yes. Software robots are capable of handling such tasks, par- ticularly if the design of the web grocery shopping site does not change radically over time. e. (bridge) Yes. Programs such as GIB now play at a solid level. f. (theorem proving) Yes. For example, the proof of Robbins algebra described on page 309. g. (funny story) No. While some computer-generated prose and poetry is hysterically funny, this is invariably unintentional, except in the case of programs that echo back prose that they have memorized. h. (legal advice) Yes, in some cases. AI has a long history of research into applications of automated legal reasoning. Two outstanding examples are the Prolog-based expert

3 systems used in the UK to guide members of the public in dealing with the intricacies of the social security and nationality laws. The social security system is said to have saved the UK government approximately $150 million in its ﬁrst year of operation. However, extension into more complex areas such as contract law awaits a satisfactory encoding of the vast web of common-sense knowledge pertaining to commercial transactions and agreement and business practices. i. (translation) Yes. In a limited way, this is already being done. See Kay, Gawron and Norvig (1994) and Wahlster (2000) for an overview of the ﬁeld of speech translation, and some limitations on the current state of the art. j. (surgery) Yes. Robots are increasingly being used for surgery, although always under the command of a doctor. 1.8 Certainly perception and motor skills are important, and it is a good thing that the ﬁelds of vision and robotics exist (whether or not you want to consider them part of “core” AI). But given a percept, an agent still has the task of “deciding” (either by deliberation or by reaction) which action to take. This is just as true in the real world as in artiﬁcial micro- worlds such as chess-playing. So computing the appropriate action will remain a crucial part of AI, regardless of the perceptual and motor system to which the agent program is “attached.” On the other hand, it is true that a concentration on micro-worlds has led AI away from the really interesting environments (see page 46). 1.9 Evolution tends to perpetuate organisms (and combinations and mutations of organ- isms) that are succesful enough to reproduce. That is, evolution favors organisms that can optimize their performance measure to at least survive to the age of sexual maturity, and then be able to win a mate. Rationality just means optimizing performance measure, so this is in line with evolution. 1.10 Yes, they are rational, because slower, deliberative actions would tend to result in more damage to the hand. If “intelligent” means “applying knowledge” or “using thought and reasoning” then it does not require intelligence to make a reﬂex action. 1.11 This depends on your deﬁnition of “intelligent” and “tell.” In one sense computers only do what the programmers command them to do, but in another sense what the programmers consciously tells the computer to do often has very little to do with what the computer actually does. Anyone who has written a program with an ornery bug knows this, as does anyone who has written a successful machine learning program. So in one sense Samuel “told” the computer “learn to play checkers better than I do, and then play that way,” but in another sense he told the computer “follow this learning algorithm” and it learned to play. So we’re left in the situation where you may or may not consider learning to play checkers to be s sign of intelligence (or you may think that learning to play in the right way requires intelligence, but not in this way), and you may think the intelligence resides in the programmer or in the computer. 1.12 The point of this exercise is to notice the parallel with the previous one. Whatever you decided about whether computers could be intelligent in 1.9, you are committed to making the

4 Chapter 1. Introduction same conclusion about animals (including humans), unless your reasons for deciding whether something is intelligent take into account the mechanism (programming via genes versus programming via a human programmer). Note that Searle makes this appeal to mechanism in his Chinese Room argument (see Chapter 26). 1.13 Again, the choice you make in 1.11 drives your answer to this question.

资料库

Solution Manual Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach 2nd e....pdf

相关推荐

课程资源

热门标签

最新资料