Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm writing a genetic programming (GP) system (in C but that's a minor detail). I've read a lot of the literature (Koza, Poli, Langdon, Banzhaf, Brameier, et al) but there are some implementation details I've never seen explained. For example:
I'm using a steady state population rather than a generational approach, primarily to use all of the computer's memory rather than reserve half for the interim population.
Q1. In GP, as opposed to GA, when you perform crossover you select two parents but do you create one child or two, or is that a free choice you have?
Q2. In steady state GP, as opposed to a generational system, what members of the population do the children created by crossover replace? This is what I haven't seen discussed. Is it the two parents, or is it two other, randomly-selected members? I can understand if it's the latter, and that you might use negative tournament selection to choose members to replace, but would that not create premature convergence? (After a crossover event the population contains the two original parents plus two children of those parents, and two other random members get removed. Elitism is inherent.)
Q3. Is there a Web forum or mailing list focused on GP? Oddly I haven't found one. Yahoo's GP group is used almost exclusively for announcements, the Poli/Langdon Field Guide forum is almost silent, and GP discussions on general/game programming sites like gamedev.net are very basic.
Thanks for any help you can provide!
Firstly, relax.
There are no "correct" methods in GP. GP is more art than science. Try lots of schemes and pick the ones that work best.
Q1: 1, 2, or many. You choose.
Q2: Replace, 1, 2, all. Or try some elitism.
Q3: You probably won't find forums discussing these questions b/c there are no right/best answers. Sorry.
PS. In my research, crossover never really performed well...
If you can read Python, you may want to take a look at Pyevolve. I am mainly involved in it on the GA side, but it has support for GP as well. May be you can get some hint there.
Q1 is your choice, but single child would probably be more common. Every time you do the lottery selection of parents, you're applying selection pressure, which is what you want.
Q2: Negative tournament selection is exactly the right approach. Yes, losing low-fitness members of the population causes rapid convergence initially, but once your population gets into the hard-to-search part of the solution space, it won't be as cut-and-dried which ones lose the tournament / lottery. What you do have to beware of is stagnation of the gene pool; I suggest monitoring the entropy of the genome to track its heterogeneity. "elitism is inherent" -- Well, yeah, that's the point! ;-)
Q3: comp.ai.genetic is probably your best bet. Sometimes the topic is picked up in game development fora, like on Gamasutra.
P.S. Genetic programming in C?!? How are you assuring the viability of the offspring? Doing genetic programming in a non-homoiconic language is a real challenge.
Check out MetaOptimize.com for your stacky needs.
As Ray, says, it's mostly up to you but typically in a steady-state setup you would only create a single offspring.
Again you have options. I wouldn't replace the parents. If they've been picked as parents based on their fitness you could be eliminating some of the fittest members of the population. Easiest is just to randomly pick an individual to be replaced. Alternatively, you could replace the least fit individual, but that can lead to premature convergence. Another option is to use the same selection strategy that you use to choose parents but use the inverse fitness so that it favours less fit individuals.
You could try comp.ai.genetic on USENET (and Google Groups).
It sounds like some of your questions are not necessarily specific to genetic programming; if that's true, you might have some luck asking the folks over at the NEAT Users Group.
They primarily discuss the Neuroevolution of Augmenting Topologies (or NEAT) algorithm, which is a genetic algorithm used to evolve neural networks. But topics like elitism and crossover strategies are pretty general, and can apply to both GA and GP algorithms.
Otherwise, as Dan and Ray have said, a lot of these decisions are made after experimentation with one's particular software and domain. Try applying your algorithm to different problems and pay attention to how it behaves -- after a while, you'll probably develop an intuition for what works and what doesn't.
I would create an unlimited number of offspring, but only on the basis of success, and let older members of the population die. Lack of fitness can also lead to early death. This just seems to follow a natural order.
Q1. In GP, as opposed to GA, when you perform crossover you select two parents but
do you create one child or two, or is that a free choice you have?
Yes its your choice; but generally, its not advisable to create many individuals with the same parents, because the difference among the individual's trends created by the same parents would be very limited and that could cost processing speed and memory which could have been spent on other individuals showing different trends and behaviors that requires analysis (but creating more individuals cannot be a problem if the evolution process is close to reaching its endpoint).
Q2. In steady state GP...
It is advisable to replace individuals based on the ranking provided by the fitness function you have adopted.
Related
How do AI based agents infer a decision that are not necessary rational but logical correct based on previous experience.
In the field of AI how do experts system infer, what kind of maths and probabilities are involved here?
I plan on creating an intelligent, but don't no where to start. Pointers or links to any resources would be grateful. Preferably a resources that describes the mathematical concept for those whom are not mathematical minded.
I don't understand your question. In AI parlance, rationality is taken to mean, "Acting in a way, given a situation and a history, that is expected to maximize some performance measure." One does not sacrifice rationality, because that would be acting in a way not expected to maximize performance.
Maybe you are thinking that rationality and predicate- or first order logic are the same thing; they're not.
In any case, your question is too broad to really answer. But, I believe you'll want to start with basic probability, then specifically Bayesian probability and statistics, and then (having the correct tools) you can look into probabilistic AI techniques: Markov chains, Markov decision processes, etc. You can also look at machine learning techniques.
Be aware: These are not simple mathematics. There is no way around that.
Note that this answer speaks to my personal biases; it is not an exhaustive list of techniques.
One approach is to use Propositional Logic or First Order Logic. The latter is more flexible.
First you define the current knowledge and then you can perform inferences applying rules. Prolog is a very powerful programming language for this purpose. In prolog you define you current knowledge using facts and then you can create rules that denote relationships. Then you can perform queries based on your facts and rules you defined.
I'm wondering how people test artificial intelligence algorithms in an automated fashion.
One example would be for the Turing Test - say there were a number of submissions for a contest. Is there any conceivable way to score candidates in an automated fashion - other than just having humans test them out.
I've also seen some data sets (obscured images of numbers/letters, groups of photos, etc) that can be fed in and learned over time. What good resources are out there for this.
One challenge I see: you don't want an algorithm that tailors itself to the test data over time, since you are trying to see how well it does in the general case. Are there any techniques to ensure it doesn't do this? Such as giving it a random test each time, or averaging its results over a bunch of random tests.
Basically, given a bunch of algorithms, I want some automated process to feed it data and see how well it "learned" it or can predict new stuff it hasn't seen yet.
This is a complex topic - good AI algorithms are generally the ones which can generalize well to "unseen" data. The simplest method is to have two datasets: a training set and an evaluation set used for measuring the performances. But generally, you want to "tune" your algorithm so you may want 3 datasets, one for learning, one for tuning, and one for evaluation. What defines tuning depends on your algorithm, but a typical example is a model where you have a few hyper-parameters (for example parameters in your Bayesian prior under the Bayesian view of learning) that you would like to tune on a separate dataset. The learning procedure would already have set a value for it (or maybe you hardcoded their value), but having enough data may help so that you can tune them separately.
As for making those separate datasets, there are many ways to do so, for example by dividing the data you have available into subsets used for different purposes. There is a tradeoff to be made because you want as much data as possible for training, but you want enough data for evaluation too (assuming you are in the design phase of your new algorithm/product).
A standard method to do so in a systematic way from a known dataset is cross validation.
Generally when it comes to this sort of thing you have two datasets - one large "training set" which you use to build and tune the algorithm, and a separate smaller "probe set" that you use to evaluate its performance.
#Anon has the right of things - training and what I'll call validation sets. That noted, the bits and pieces I see about developments in this field point at two things:
Bayesian Classifiers: there's something like this probably filtering your email. In short you train the algorithm to make a probabilistic decision if a particular item is part of a group or not (e.g. spam and ham).
Multiple Classifiers: this is the approach that the winning group involved in the Netflix challenge took, whereby it's not about optimizing one particular algorithm (e.g. Bayesian, Genetic Programming, Neural Networks, etc..) by combining several to get a better result.
As for data sets Weka has several available. I haven't explored other libraries for data sets, but mloss.org appears to be a good resource. Finally data.gov offers a lot of sets that provide some interesting opportunities.
Training data sets and test sets are very common for K-means and other clustering algorithms, but to have something that's artificially intelligent without supervised learning (which means having a training set) you are building a "brain" so-to-speak based on:
In chess: all possible future states possible from the current gameState.
In most AI-learning (reinforcement learning) you have a problem where the "agent" is trained by doing the game over and over. Basically you ascribe a value to every state. Then you assign an expected value of each possible action at a state.
So say you have S states and a actions per state (although you might have more possible moves in one state, and not as many in another), then you want to figure out the most-valuable states from s to be in, and the most valuable actions to take.
In order to figure out the value of states and their corresponding actions, you have to iterate the game through. Probabilistically, a certain sequence of states will lead to victory or defeat, and basically you learn which states lead to failure and are "bad states". You also learn which ones are more likely to lead to victory, and these are subsequently "good" states. They each get a mathematical value associated, usually as an expected reward.
Reward from second-last state to a winning state: +10
Reward if entering a losing state: -10
So the states that give negative rewards then give negative rewards backwards, to the state that called the second-last state, and then the state that called the third-last state and so-on.
Eventually, you have a mapping of expected reward based on which state you're in, and based on which action you take. You eventually find the "optimal" sequence of steps to take. This is often referred to as an optimal policy.
It is true of the converse that normal courses of actions that you are stepping-through while deriving the optimal policy are called simply policies and you are always implementing a certain "policy" with respect to Q-Learning.
Usually the way of determining the reward is the interesting part. Suppose I reward you for each state-transition that does not lead to failure. Then the value of walking all the states until I terminated is however many increments I made, however many state transitions I had.
If certain states are extremely unvaluable, then loss is easy to avoid because almost all bad states are avoided.
However, you don't want to discourage discovery of new, potentially more-efficient paths that don't follow just this-one-works, so you want to reward and punish the agent in such a way as to ensure "victory" or "keeping the pole balanced" or whatever as long as possible, but you don't want to be stuck at local maxima and minima for efficiency if failure is too painful, so no new, unexplored routes will be tried. (Although there are many approaches in addition to this one).
So when you ask "how do you test AI algorithms" the best part is is that the testing itself is how many "algorithms" are constructed. The algorithm is designed to test a certain course-of-action (policy). It's much more complicated than
"turn left every half mile"
it's more like
"turn left every half mile if I have turned right 3 times and then turned left 2 times and had a quarter in my left pocket to pay fare... etc etc"
It's very precise.
So the testing is usually actually how the A.I. is being programmed. Most models are just probabilistic representations of what is probably good and probably bad. Calculating every possible state is easier for computers (we thought!) because they can focus on one task for very long periods of time and how much they remember is exactly how much RAM you have. However, we learn by affecting neurons in a probabilistic manner, which is why the memristor is such a great discovery -- it's just like a neuron!
You should look at Neural Networks, it's mindblowing. The first time I read about making a "brain" out of a matrix of fake-neuron synaptic connections... A brain that can "remember" basically rocked my universe.
A.I. research is mostly probabilistic because we don't know how to make "thinking" we just know how to imitate our own inner learning process of try, try again.
I remember when I was in college we went over some problem where there was a smart agent that was on a grid of squares and it had to clean the squares. It was awarded points for cleaning. It also was deducted points for moving. It had to refuel every now and then and at the end it got a final score based on how many squares on the grid were dirty or clean.
I'm trying to study that problem since it was very interesting when I saw it in college, however I cannot find anything on wikipedia or anywhere online. Is there a specific name for that problem that you know about? Or maybe it was just something my teacher came up with for the class.
I'm searching for AI cleaning agent and similar things, but I don't find anything. I don't know, I'm thinking maybe it has some other name.
If you know where I can find more information about this problem I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Perhaps a "stigmergy" approach is closely related to your problem. There is a starting point here, and you can find something by searching for "dead ants" and "robots" on google scholar.
Basically: instead of modelling a precise strategy you work toward a probabilistic approach. Ants (probably) collect their deads by piling up according to a simple rule such as "if there is a pile of dead ants there, I bring this corpse hither; otherwise, I'll make a new pile". You can start by simplifying your 'cleaning' situation with that, and see where you go.
Also, I think (another?) suitable approach could be modelled with a Genetic Algorithm using a carefully chosen combination of fitness functions such as:
the end number of 'clean' tiles
the number of steps made by the robot
of course if the robots 'dies' out of starvation it automatically removes itself from the gene pool, a-la darwin awards :)
You could start by modelling a very, very simple genotype that will be 'computed' into a behaviour. Consider using a simple GA such as this one by Inman Harvey, then to each gene assign either a part of the strategy, or a complete behaviour. E.g.: if gene A is turned to 1 then the robot will try to wander randomly; if gene B is also turned to 1, then it will give priority to self-charging unless there are dirty tiles at distance X. Or use floats and model probability. Your mileage may vary but I can assure it will be fun :)
The problem is reminiscent of Shakey, although there's cleaning involved (which is like the Roomba -- a device that can also be programmed to perform these very tasks).
If the "problem space" (or room) is small enough, you can solve for an optimal solution using a simple A*-based search, but likely it won't be, since that won't leave for very interesting problems.
The machine learning approach suggested here using genetic algorithms is an interesting approach. Given the problem domain you would only have one "rule" (a move-to action, since clean could be eliminated by implicitly cleaning any square you move to that is dirty) so your learner would essentially be learning how to move around an environment. The problem there would be to build a learner that would be adaptable to any given floor plan, instead of just becoming proficient at cleaning a very specific space.
Whatever approach you have, I'd also consider doing a further meta-reasoning step if the problem sets are big enough, and use a partition approach to divide the floor up into separate areas and then conquering them one at a time.
Can you use techniques to create data to use "offline"? In that case, I'd even consider creating a "database" of optimal routes to take to clean certain floor spaces (1x1 up to, say, 5x5) that include all possible start and end squares. This is similar to "endgame databases" that game AIs use to effectively "solve" games once they reach a certain depth (c.f. Chinook).
This problem reminds me of this. A similar problem is briefly mentioned in the book Complexity as an example of a genetic algorithm. These versions are simplified though, they don't take into account fuel consumption.
I am running a physics simulation and applying a set of movement instructions to a simulated skeleton. I have a multiple sets of instructions for the skeleton consisting of force application to legs, arms, torso etc. and duration of force applied to their respective bone. Each set of instructions (behavior) is developed by testing its effectiveness performing the desired behavior, and then modifying the behavior with a genetic algorithm with other similar behaviors, and testing it again. The skeleton will have an array behaviors in its set list.
I have fitness functions which test for stability, speed, minimization of entropy and force on joints. The problem is that any given behavior will work for a specific context. One behavior works on flat ground, another works if there is a bump in front of the right foot, another if it's in front of the left, and so on. So the fitness of each behavior varies based on the context. Picking a behavior simply on its previous fitness level won't work because that fitness score doesn't apply to this context.
My question is, how do I program to have the skeleton pick the best behavior for the context? Such as picking the best walking behavior for a randomized bumpy terrain.
In a different answer I've given to this question, I assumed that the "terrain" information you have for your model was very approximate and large-grained, e.g., "smooth and flat", "rough", "rocky", etc. and perhaps only at a grid level. However, if the world model is in fact very detailed, such as from a simulated version of a 3-D laser range scanner, then algorithmic and computational path/motion planning approaches from robotics are likely to be more useful than a machine-learning classifier system.
PATH/MOTION PLANNING METHODS
There are a fairly large number of path and motion planning methods, including some perhaps more suited to walking/locomotion, but a few of the more general ones worth mentioning are:
Visibility graphs
Potential Fields
Sampling-based methods
The general solution approach would be use a path planning method to determine the walking trajectory that your skeleton should follow to avoid obstacles, and then use your GA-based controller to achieve the appropriate motion. This is very much at the core of robotics: sense the world and determine actions and motor control required to achieve some goal(s).
Also, a quick literature search turned up the following papers and a book as a source of ideas and starting points for further investigation. The paper on legged robot motion planning may be especially useful as it discusses several motion planning strategies.
Reading Suggestions
Steven Michael LaValle (2006). Planning Algorithms, Cambridge University Press.
Kris Hauser, Timothy Bretl, Jean-Claude Latombe, Kensuke Harada, Brian Wilcox (2008). "Motion Planning for Legged Robots on Varied Terrain", The International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 27, No. 11-12, 1325-1349,
DOI: 10.1177/0278364908098447
Guilherme N. DeSouza and Avinash C. Kak (2002). "Vision for Mobile Robot Navigation: A Survey", IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 24, No. 2, February, pp 237-267.
Why not test the behaviors against a randomized bumpy terrain? Just set the parameters of the GA so that it's a little forgiving, and won't condemn a behavior for one or two failures.
You have two problems:
Bipedal locomotion without senses is very difficult. I've seen good robotic locomotion over rough terrain without senses, but never with only two legs. So the best solution you can possibly find this way might not be very good.
Running a GA is as much art as science. There are a lot of knobs you can turn, and it's hard to find parameters that will allow novelty to grow without drowning it in noise.
Starting simple (e.g. crawling) will help with both of these.
EDIT:
Wait... you're training it over and over on the same randomized terrain? Well no wonder you're having trouble! It's optimizing for that particular layout of rocks and bumps, which is much easier than generalizing. Depending on how your GA works, you might get some benefit from making the course really long, but a better solution is to randomize the terrain for every pass. When it can no longer exploit specific features of the terrain, it will have an evolutionary incentive to generalize. Since this is a more difficult problem it will not learn as quickly as it did before, and it might not be able to get very good at all with its current parameters; be prepared to tinker.
There are three aspects to my answer: (1) control theory, (2) sensing, and (3) merging sensing and action.
CONTROL THEORY
The answer to your problem depends partially on what kind of control scheme you are using: is it feed-forward or feedback control? If the latter, what simulated real-time sensors do you have other than terrain information?
Simply having terrain information and incorporating it into your control strategy would not mean you are using feedback control. It is possible to use such information to select a feed-forward strategy, which seems closest to the problem that you have described.
SENSING
Whether you are using feed-forward or feedback control, you need to represent the terrain information and any other sensory data as an input space for your control system. Part of training your GA-based motion controller should be moving your skeleton through a broad range of random terrain in order to learn feature detectors. The feature detectors classify the terrain scenarios by segmenting the input space into regions critical to deciding what is the best action policy, i.e., what control behavior to employ.
How to best represent the input space depends on the level of granularity of the terrain information you have for your simulation. If it's just a discrete space of terrain type and/or obstacles in some grid space, you may be able to present it directly to your GA without transformation. If, however, the data is in a continuous space such as terrain type and obstacles at arbitrary range/direction, you may need to transform it into a space from which it may be easier to infer spatial relationships, such as coarse-coded range and direction, e.g., near, mid, far and forward, left-forward, left, etc. Gaussian and fuzzy classifiers can be useful for the latter approach, but discrete-valued coding can also work.
MERGING SENSING AND ACTION
Using one of the input-space-encoding approaches above, you have a few options for how to connect behavior selection search space and motion control search space:
Separate the two spaces into two learning problems and use a separate GA to evolve the parameters of a standard multi-layer perceptron neural network. The latter would have your sensor data (perhaps transformed) as inputs and your set of skeleton behaviors as outputs. Instead of using back-propagation or some other ANN-learning method to learn the network weights, your GA could use some fitness function to evolve the parameters over a series of simulated trials, e.g., fitness = distance traveled in a fixed time period toward point B starting from point A. This should evolve over successive generations from completely random selection of behaviors to something more coordinated and useful.
Merge the two search spaces (behavior selection and skeleton motor control) by linking a multi-layer perceptron network as described in (1) above into the existing GA-based controller framework that you have, using the skeleton behavior set as the linkage. The parameter space that will be evolved will be both the neural network weights and whatever your existing controller parameter space is. Assuming that you are using a multi-objective genetic algorithm, such as the NSGA-II algorithm, (since you have multiple fitness functions), the fitness functions would be stability, speed, minimization of entropy, force on joints, etc, plus some fitness function(s) targeted at learning the behavior-selection policy, e.g., distance moved toward point B starting from point A in a fixed time period.
The difference between this approach and (1) above is that you may be able to learn both better coordination of behaviors and finer-grain motor control since the parameter space is likely to be better explored when the two problems are merged as opposed to being separate. The downside is that it may take much longer to converge on reasonable parameter solutions(s), and not all aspects of motor control may be learned as well as they would if the two learning problems were kept separate.
Given that you already have working evolved solutions for the motor control problem, you are probably better off using approach (1) to learn the behavior-selection model with a separate GA. Also, there are many alternatives to the hybrid GA-ANN scheme I described above for learning the latter model, including not learning a model at all and instead using a path planning algorithm as described in a separate answer from me. I simply offered this approach since you are already familiar with GA-based machine learning.
The action selection problem is a robust area of research in both machine learning and autonomous robotics. It's probably well-worth reading up on this topic in itself to gain better perspective and insight into your current problem, and you may be able to devise a simpler strategy than anything I've suggested so far by viewing your problem through the lens of this paradigm.
You're using a genetic algorithm to modify the behavior, so that must mean you have devised a fitness function for each combination of factors. Is that your question?
If yes, the answer depends on what metrics you use to define best walking behavior:
Maximize stability
Maximize speed
Minimize forces on joints
Minimize energy or entropy production
Or do you just try a bunch of parameters, record the values, and then let the genetic algorithm drive you to the best solution?
If each behavior works well in one context and not another, I'd try quantifying how to sense and interpolate between contexts and blend the strategies to see if that would help.
It sounds like at this point you have just a classification problem. You want to map some knowledge about what you are currently walking on to one of a set of classes. Knowing the class of the terrain allows you to then invoke the proper subroutine. Is this correct?
If so, then there are a wide array of classification engines that you can use including neural networks, Bayesian networks, decision trees, nearest neighbor, etc. In order to pick the best fit, we will need more information about your problem.
First, what kind of input or sensory data do you have available to help you identify the behavior class you should invoke? Second, can you describe the circumstances in which you will be training this classifier and what the circumstances are during runtime when you deploy it, such as any limits on computational resources or requirements of robustness to noise?
EDIT: Since you have a fixed number of classes, and you have some parameterized model for generating all possible terrains, I would consider using k-means clustering. The principle is as follows. You cluster a whole bunch of terrains into k different classes, where each cluster is associated with one of your specialized subroutines that performs best for that cluster of terrains. Then when a new terrain comes in, it will probably fall near one of these clusters. You then invoke the corresponding specialized subroutine to navigate that terrain.
Do this offline: Generate enough random terrains to sufficiently sample the parameter space, map these terrains to your sensory space (but remember which points in sensory space correspond to which terrains), and then run k-means clustering on this sensory space corpus where k is the number of classes you want to learn. Your distance function between a class representative C and a point P in sensory space would be simply the fitness function of letting algorithm C navigate the terrain that generated P. You would then get a partitioning of your sensory space into k clusters, each cluster mapping to the best subroutine that you've got. Each cluster will have a representative point in sensory space.
Now during runtime: You will get some unlabeled point in sensory space. Use a different distance function to find the closest representative point to this new incoming point. That tells you what class the terrain is.
Note that the success of this method depends on the quality of the mapping from the parameter space of terrain generation to sensory space, from sensory space to your fitness functions, and the eventual distance function you use to compare points in sensory space.
Note also that if you had enough memory, instead of only using the k representative sensory points to tell you which class an unlabeled sensory point belongs to, you might go through your training set and label all points with the learned class. Then during runtime you pick the nearest neighbor, and conclude that your unlabeled point in sensory space is in the same class as that neighbor.
In a rule system, or any reasoning system that deduces facts via forward-chaining inference rules, how would you prune "unnecessary" branches? I'm not sure what the formal terminology is, but I'm just trying to understand how people are able to limit their train-of-thought when reasoning over problems, whereas all semantic reasoners I've seen appear unable to do this.
For example, in John McCarthy's paper An Example for Natural Language Understanding and the AI Problems It Raises, he describes potential problems in getting a program to intelligently answer questions about a news article in the New York Times. In section 4, "The Need For Nonmonotonic Reasoning", he discusses the use of Occam's Razer to restrict the inclusion of facts when reasoning about the story. The sample story he uses is one about robbers who victimize a furniture store owner.
If a program were asked to form a "minimal completion" of the story in predicate calculus, it might need to include facts not directly mentioned in the original story. However, it would also need some way of knowing when to limit its chain of deduction, so as not to include irrelevant details. For example, it might want to include the exact number of police involved in the case, which the article omits, but it won't want to include the fact that each police officer has a mother.
Good Question.
From your Question i think what you refer to as 'pruning' is a model-building step performed ex ante--ie, to limit the inputs available to the algorithm to build the model. The term 'pruning' when used in Machine Learning refers to something different--an ex post step, after model construction and that operates upon the model itself and not on the available inputs. (There could be a second meaning in the ML domain, for the term 'pruning.' of, but i'm not aware of it.) In other words, pruning is indeed literally a technique to "limit its chain of deduction" as you put it, but it does so ex post, by excision of components of a complete (working) model, and not by limiting the inputs used to create that model.
On the other hand, isolating or limiting the inputs available for model construction--which is what i think you might have had in mind--is indeed a key Machine Learning theme; it's clearly a factor responsible for the superior performance of many of the more recent ML algorithms--for instance, Support Vector Machines (the insight that underlies SVM is construction of the maximum-margin hyperplane from only a small subset of the data, i.e, the 'support vectors'), and Multi-Adaptive Regression Splines (a regression technique in which no attempt is made to fit the data by "drawing a single continuous curve through it", instead, discrete section of the data are fit, one by one, using a bounded linear equation for each portion, ie., the 'splines', so the predicate step of optimal partitioning of the data is obviously the crux of this algorithm).
What problem is solving by pruning?
At least w/r/t specific ML algorithms i have actually coded and used--Decision Trees, MARS, and Neural Networks--pruning is performed on an initially over-fit model (a model that fits the training data so closely that it is unable to generalize (accurately predict new instances). In each instance, pruning involves removing marginal nodes (DT, NN) or terms in the regression equation (MARS) one by one.
Second, why is pruning necessary/desirable?
Isn't it better to just accurately set the convergence/splitting criteria? That won't always help. Pruning works from "the bottom up"; the model is constructed from the top down, so tuning the model (to achieve the same benefit as pruning) eliminates not just one or more decision nodes but also the child nodes that (like trimming a tree closer to the trunk). So eliminating a marginal node might also eliminate one or more strong nodes subordinate to that marginal node--but the modeler would never know that because his/her tuning eliminated further node creation at that marginal node. Pruning works from the other direction--from the most subordinate (lowest-level) child nodes upward in the direction of the root node.