Open Problems

There was an interesting article about Einstein in The New Yorker, discussing his annus mirabilis, 1905, when he published a series of fundamental papers. One thing that was new to me in this article was that Einstein was inspired by a book by Henri Poincaré:

As it began, Einstein, twenty-five years old, was employed as an inspector in a patent office in Bern, Switzerland. Having earlier failed to get his doctorate in physics, he had temporarily given up on the idea of an academic career, telling a friend that “the whole comedy has become boring.” He had recently read a book by Henri Poincaré, a French mathematician of enormous reputation, which identified three fundamental unsolved problems in science. The first concerned the “photoelectric effect”: how did ultraviolet light knock electrons off the surface of a piece of metal? The second concerned “Brownian motion”: why did pollen particles suspended in water move about in a random zigzag pattern? The third concerned the “luminiferous ether” that was supposed to fill all of space and serve as the medium through which light waves moved, the way sound waves move through air, or ocean waves through water: why had experiments failed to detect the earth’s motion through this ether? Each of these problems had the potential to reveal what Einstein held to be the underlying simplicity of nature. Working alone, apart from the scientific community, the unknown junior clerk rapidly managed to dispatch all three. His solutions were presented in four papers, written in the months of March, April, May, and June of 1905.

Reading this inspired me to think about the importance of explicitly stated open problems. I soon came up with a list of examples of historically influential open problems:

  1. Hilbert’s Problems
  2. Clay Millennium Prize Problems
  3. P versus NP
  4. Poincaré’s Problems
  5. Open Problems in Artificial Life
  6. Longitude Problem
  7. Ansari X Prize
  8. Orteig Prize
  9. Grainger Challenge Prize for Sustainability

Then I started looking for open problems in Artificial Intelligence:

  1. Symbol Grounding Problem
  2. Frame Problem
  3. Frame + Symbol Grounding
  4. Variable Binding Problem
  5. Self-Reference and Self-Modifying Algorithms
  6. Connection between Symbolic and Subsymbolic Cognition
  7. Best Method for Knowledge Representation
  8. Foundation of Unsupervised Learning
  9. Integrating Multiple Models, Multiple Resolutions (Granularities), Multiple Senses (Modes)
  10. Belief-Action-Desire Model
  11. Approximate Database Retrieval
  12. Ethical AI
  13. Integrating the Subfields of AI
  14. Learning Physical Skills
  15. Credit Assignment Problem
  16. Non-Monotonic Reasoning Problems
  17. Problems with Negation as Failure
  18. Common Sense
  19. Learning Chess
  20. Raj Reddy’s Problems and Grand Challenges
  21. Grand Challenges

What would you add to this list?

Thanks to Martin Brooks and Daniel Lemire for discussions on this topic. I originally wrote the above notes to myself two years ago, but only remembered them after reading Daniel’s post.

11 Responses

  1. In the risk of being too banal, I whole heartedly believe that what seems to be of an extreme importance are the research fields of (a) concept formation and (b) analogy making, two fields which are intimately intertwined between them as well as with several of the open problems that you mention above (eg the symbol grounding problem and the frame problem).

    What strikes me as peculiar is that despite the immense importance of analogy making, there are only few exceptionally bright people (among them Carbonell in the early 80s, Gentner for the last 25 years, Hofstadter and his team for almost two decades now, Yves Lepage from the French speaking community — and of course you, Peter Turney) that actually take analogy making really seriously.

    To be honest, my doctoral thesis (which I recently had) was on multi-document summarization and in order to create summaries from multiple documents I had to detect similarities and differences between the documents. As time went by, I realized that all I was actually trying to do using Machine Learning techniques in order to identify the similarities and differences, was simply a crude way of forming concepts and finding similarities among them. Then I came upon an article on analogies and it really struck me that this is what I was trying to do all along and that it is really worth it taking those issues really seriously. I am currently working on a way to incorporate a crude model of concept formation and analogy making for MDS.

    Anyway, I guess I have sidetracked but if I had to make one choice I would suggest the (difficult to disentangle) duo of concept formation and analogy making.

  2. Great and inspiring list!

    I would add to the list two questions: automatic service retrieval and efficient planning. I would remove “Best Method for Knowledge Representation” – there is no criteria for judging a solution, which makes it difficult to phrase as a question.

  3. Anyway, I guess I have sidetracked but if I had to make one choice I would suggest the (difficult to disentangle) duo of concept formation and analogy making.

    George Lakoff would agree with you. I think you would like his very interesting book, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. And The Way We Think is also relevant.

    I would add to the list two questions: automatic service retrieval and efficient planning.

    OK, these are good.

    I would remove “Best Method for Knowledge Representation” – there is no criteria for judging a solution, which makes it difficult to phrase as a question.

    Part of any problem is defining the problem (maybe the most important part). If you click on the link for “Best Method for Knowledge Representation“, there is a quote from Minsky that I like.

    Daniel Lemire suggests adding Learning Go. So we now have:

    22. Concept Formation and Analogy Making
    23. Automatic Service Retrieval
    24. Efficient Planning
    25. Learning Go

  4. George Lakoff would agree with you. I think you would like his very interesting book, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. And The Way We Think is also relevant.

    Since it’s been just something like during the last six months that I have been seriously considering analogies and concepts formation, there are many books and papers that I am missing. So, your suggestions are very welcome. As a matter of fact, something like a week ago I ordered Lakoff’s book (didn’t have the time yet to read it though) and Gilles Fauconnier’s book is on my wish list. If you do have more suggestions, I would really be happy to hear them.

  5. Not that any of these problems isn’t important, but after looking at “the trees”, isn’t it about time that we try to get at the big picture and see “the forest”? This is why some problems may be more interesting than others. Counterintuitively, the more abstract problems are likely the most promising, because other “practical” problems depend on them, not the other way around. I agree with Stergos that concept formation stands out because, after all, “intelligence” is a concept, and if we really knew what a concept is, it would surely help our approach to the problem.

  6. Nice list of problems.

    I’ll get to work on them.

  7. Mentifex: I’ll get to work on them.

    Me too

  8. Hi, love the list. In addition to learning chess, the game of Go is still a challenge for AI using brute force or learning approaches; the branching factor is much higher than chess.

    Thanks.

  9. Here’s 3 more:
    26. Natural language understanding
    27. Reasoning with “messy” knowledge (imperfect/erroneous KBs)
    28. Knowledge integration (assimilating new knowledge into old)

  10. BONGARD Problems.

    Take a look at them in Harry Foundalis’s pages. They tie perception with reasoning, and if we can solve them, the rest will be much easier.

  11. I assume this just came up recently on the web, although it’s dated from 1996. Some interesting stuff though.

    http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/horvitz/seltext.htm

Leave a Reply