DOCSLIB.ORG

Conference Organizers and Program Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conference Organizers and Program Committee Organization of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence 1994 National Conference on Richard K. Belew, University of California, San Diego William P. Birmingham, University of Michigan Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94) Mark Boddy, Honeywell Systems & Research Center Conference Chair Peter Bonasso, The MITRE Corporation William Swartout, USC/Information Sciences Institute Craig Boutilier, University of British Columbia Hans Brunner, US West Advanced Technologies Program Cochairs Sandra Carberry, University of Pennsylvania Barbara Hayes-Roth, Stanford University B. Chandrasekaran, Ohio State University Richard E. Korf, University of California, Los Angeles & Stanford University Associate Chair Eugene Charniak, Brown University Howard E. Shrobe, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Susan Conry, Clarkson University James Crawford, CIRL Challenge Committee Chair Roger B. Dannenberg, Carnegie Mellon University Thomas L. Dean, Brown University Adnan Darwiche, Rockwell International Science Center Art Exhibition Chair Henry Davis, Wright State University Joseph Bates, Carnegie Mellon University Luc De Raedt, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Thomas L. Dean, Brown University Machine Translation Showcase Committee Rina Dechter, University of California, Irvine Jaime Carbonell, Carnegie Mellon University Johan De Kleer, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Bonnie Dorr, University of Maryland Nachum Dershowitz, University of Illinois at Urbana- Eduard Hovy, University of Southern California Champaign Robot Competition and Exhibition Chair Oskar Dressler, Siemens AG Reid Simmons, Carnegie Mellon University Mark Drummond, Recom Technologies & NASA Ames Research Center Robot Laboratory Chair Edmund Durfee, University of Michigan Willie Lim, Lehman Brothers Clark Elliott, DePaul University & Northwestern University Student Abstract Program Chair Susan Epstein, CUNY Hunter College New York Kristian Hammond, University of Chicago Oren Etzioni, University of Washington Matthew Evett, Florida Atlantic University Tutorial Program Chair Brian Falkenhainer, Xerox Design Practice & Technology Devika Subramanian, Cornell University Adam Farquhar, Stanford University Tutorial Program Cochair James R. Firby, University of Chicago Douglas Fisher, Vanderbilt University Philip Klahr, Inference Corporation Kenneth Forbus, Northwestern University/Institute for the Video Program Cochairs Learning Sciences John E. Laird, University of Michigan Peter Friedland, NASA Ames Research Center Elliot Soloway, University of Michigan William A. Gale, AT&T Bell Laboratories Workshop Program Chair Erann Gat, JPL/California Institute of Technology James Geller, New Jersey Institute of Technology Donald Perlis, University of Maryland Matthew Ginsberg, University of Oregon Program Committee Piotr Gmytrasiewicz, University of California, Riverside David W. Aha, Naval Research Laboratory Andrew Golding, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories Bradley P. Allen, Inference Corporation Moises Goldszmidt, Rockwell International Science Center Richard Alterman, Brandeis University Georg Gottlob, Technische Universität Wien Kevin D. Ashley, University of Pittsburgh John J. Grefenstette, Naval Research Laboratory Christer Bäckström, Linköping University Adam J. Grove, NEC Research Institute Joseph Bates, Carnegie Mellon University Joseph Halpern, IBM Almaden Research Center x Steve Hanks, University of Washington Jean Ponce, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Othar Hansson, Heuristicrats Research Inc. & University of David Poole, University of British Columbia California, Berkeley Gregory Provan, Institute for Decisions Systems Research James A. Hendler, University of Maryland Teodor Przymusinski, University of California, Riverside Ian Horswill, Massachusett Institute of Technology & AI Abhiram Ranade, University of California, Berkeley Laboratory Edwina L. Rissland, University of Massachusetts Eric Horvitz, Microsoft Research Enrique Ruspini, SRI International Douglas J. Howe, AT&T Bell Laboratories Stuart Russell, University of California, Berkeley Michael N. Huhns, MCC AI Laboratory Jeffrey Schlimmer, Washington State University Seth Hutchinson, University of Illinois at Urbana- Guus Schreiber, University of Amsterdam Champaign Hinrich Schutze, Stanford University Chung Hee Hwang, University of Rochester Bart Selman, AT&T Bell Laboratories Yumi Iwasaki, Stanford University Jude Shavlik, University of Wisconsin Randolph Jones, University of Michigan Mark Shirley, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Leo Joskowicz, IBM TJ Watson Research Center Yoav Shoham, Stanford University Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Brown University Reid Simmons, Carnegie Mellon University Avi Kak, Purdue University Munindar P. Singh, MCC Peter D. Karp, SRI International David E. Smith, Rockwell International Simon Kasif, Johns Hopkins University Wayne Snyder, Boston University Henry A. Kautz, AT&T Bell Laboratories Lynn Andrea Stein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard M. Keller, NASA Ames Research Center & AI Laboratory Hiroaki Kitano, Sony Computer Science Laboratory Mark E. Stickel, SRI International Georg Klinker, Digital Equipment Corporation David G. Stork, Ricoh California Research Center Daphne Koller, University of California, Berkeley Rudi Studer, Universität Karlsruhe Janet Kolodner, Georgia Institute of Technology Devika Subramanian, Cornell University Kurt Konolige, SRI International Richard Sutton, GTE Laboratories Inc. John R. Koza, Stanford University William Swartout, USC/Information Sciences Institute Benjamin Kuipers, University of Texas at Austin Katia Sycara, Carnegie Mellon University John Laird, University of Michigan Prasad Tadepalli, Oregon State University Gerhard Lakemeyer, University of Bonn Austin Tate, University of Edinburgh Amy Lansky, NASA Ames Research Center Gerry Tesauro, IBM Watson Research Laboratories David Leake, Indiana University Richmond Thomason, University of Pittsburgh Wendy G. Lehnert, University of Massachusetts Charles Thorpe, Carnegie Mellon University Alon Levy, AT&T Bell Laboratories David Throop, Boeing Missiles & Space Long-Ji Lin, Siemens Corp Research Inc Paul Utgoff, University of Massachusetts Marc Linster, Digital Equipment Corporation Peter van Beek, University of Alberta Diane Litman, AT&T Bell Laboratories Pascal Van Hentenryck, Brown University Sridhar Mahadevan, University of South Florida Manuela Veloso, Carnegie Mellon University V.W. Marek, University of Kentucky David L. Waltz, NEC Research Institute, Inc. Matthew T. Mason, Carnegie Mellon University Bonnie L. Webber, University of Pennsylvania David McAllester, Massachusetts Institute of David E. Wilkins, SRI International Technology/AI Laboratory Randall Wilson, Sandia National Laboratories Kathleen McCoy, University of Delaware Kent Wittenburg, Bell Communications Research John McDermott, Digital Equipment Corporation Gregg Yost, Digital Equipment Corporation Sheila McIlraith, University of Toronto Hantao Zhang, University of Iowa David Miller, The MITRE Corporation Shlomo Zilberstein, University of Massachusetts Steve Minton, NASA Ames Research Center Auxiliary Reviewers Thomas Mitchell, Carnegie Mellon University Jürgen Angele, University of Karlsruhe Andrew Moore, Carnegie Mellon University John Ash, Washington State University Mark A. Musen, Stanford University Andrew Baker, University of Oregon Karen L. Myers, SRI International Anthony Barret, University of Washington Dana S. Nau, University of Maryland Howard Beck, AIAI, University of Edinburgh P. Pandurang Nayak, NASA Ames Research Center Maria-Paola Bonacina, University of Iowa Nils Nilsson, Stanford University Piero Bonatti, University of Technology Vienna Martha Palmer, University of Pennsylvania Claudia Boettcher, Fraunhofer Institute, Karlsruhe Judea Pearl, University of California, Los Angeles Ronen Brafman, Stanford University Fernando Pereira, AT&T Bell Laboratories Gerhard Brewka, GMD (Germany) Dean Pomerleau, Carnegie Mellon University Maurice Bruynooghe, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven xi Joanna Bryson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, AI Robert Schrag, University of Texas Laboratory Grigori Schwarz, Stanford University Steven V. Chenoweth, AT&T Global Information Solutions Richard Segal, University of Washington Lonnie Chrisman, Carnegie Mellon University Naveen Sharma, Xerox Corporation Paul Dagum, Rockwell Science Center B. Srinivas, University of Pennsylvania Keith S. Decker, University of Massachusetts Jussi Stader, AIAI, University of Edinburgh Alvaro Del Val, Stanford University Markus Stumptner, University of Technology Vienna Marie des Jardins, SRI International Milind Tambe, USC/Information Sciences Institute Christy Doran, University of Pennsylvania Gabriel Taubin, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Georg Dorffner, Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Peter Terpstra, University of Amsterdam Intelligence Samson W. Tu, Stanford University Brian Drabble, University of Edinburgh, AIAI Tomas E. Uribe, Stanford University Tim Duncan, University of Edinburgh, AIAI Gertjan van Heijst, University of Amsterdam Thomas Eiter, University of Technology Vienna Maarten van Someren, University of Amsterdam Werner Emde, GMD (Germany) Henk Vandecasteele, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Reinhard Enders, Siemens AG Patricia Wells, Washington State University Henrik Eriksson, Stanford University Monika Zickwolff, University of Darmstadt David Etherington, AT&T Bell Laboratories Dieter Fensel, University of Karlsruhe Eugene Fink, Carnegie Mellon University Hartmut Freitag, Siemens AG AAAI Officials Nir
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Philosophical Analysis of Causality in Econometrics
    A Philosophical Analysis of Causality in Econometrics Damien James Fennell London School of Economics and Political Science Thesis submitted to the University of London for the completion of the degree of a Doctor of Philosophy August 2005 1 UMI Number: U209675 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U209675 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract This thesis makes explicit, develops and critically discusses a concept of causality that is assumed in structural models in econometrics. The thesis begins with a development of Herbert Simon’s (1953) treatment of causal order for linear deterministic, simultaneous systems of equations to provide a fully explicit mechanistic interpretation for these systems. Doing this allows important properties of the assumed causal reading to be discussed including: the invariance of mechanisms to intervention and the role of independence in interventions. This work is then extended to basic structural models actually used in econometrics, linear models with errors-in-the-equations. This part of the thesis provides a discussion of how error terms are to be interpreted and sets out a way to introduce probabilistic concepts into the mechanistic interpretation set out earlier.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT CAUSAL PROGRAMMING Joshua Brulé
    ABSTRACT Title of dissertation: CAUSAL PROGRAMMING Joshua Brul´e Doctor of Philosophy, 2019 Dissertation directed by: Professor James A. Reggia Department of Computer Science Causality is central to scientific inquiry. There is broad agreement on the meaning of causal statements, such as \Smoking causes cancer", or, \Applying pesticides affects crop yields". However, formalizing the intuition underlying such statements and conducting rigorous inference is difficult in practice. Accordingly, the overall goal of this dissertation is to reduce the difficulty of, and ambiguity in, causal modeling and inference. In other words, the goal is to make it easy for researchers to state precise causal assumptions, understand what they represent, understand why they are necessary, and to yield precise causal conclusions with minimal difficulty. Using the framework of structural causal models, I introduce a causation coeffi- cient as an analogue of the correlation coefficient, analyze its properties, and create a taxonomy of correlation/causation relationships. Analyzing these relationships provides insight into why correlation and causation are often conflated in practice, as well as a principled argument as to why formal causal analysis is necessary. Next, I introduce a theory of causal programming that unifies a large number of previ- ously separate problems in causal modeling and inference. I describe the use and implementation of a causal programming language as an embedded, domain-specific language called `Whittemore'. Whittemore permits rigorously identifying and esti- mating interventional queries without requiring the user to understand the details of the underlying inference algorithms. Finally, I analyze the computational com- plexity in determining the equilibrium distribution of cyclic causal models.
    [Show full text]
  • Causal Screening to Interpret Graph Neural
    Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021 CAUSAL SCREENING TO INTERPRET GRAPH NEURAL NETWORKS Anonymous authors Paper under double-blind review ABSTRACT With the growing success of graph neural networks (GNNs), the explainability of GNN is attracting considerable attention. However, current works on feature attribution, which frame explanation generation as attributing a prediction to the graph features, mostly focus on the statistical interpretability. They may struggle to distinguish causal and noncausal effects of features, and quantify redundancy among features, thus resulting in unsatisfactory explanations. In this work, we focus on the causal interpretability in GNNs and propose a method, Causal Screening, from the perspective of cause-effect. It incrementally selects a graph feature (i.e., edge) with large causal attribution, which is formulated as the individual causal effect on the model outcome. As a model-agnostic tool, Causal Screening can be used to generate faithful and concise explanations for any GNN model. Further, by conducting extensive experiments on three graph classification datasets, we observe that Causal Screening achieves significant improvements over state-of-the-art approaches w.r.t. two quantitative metrics: predictive accuracy, contrastivity, and safely passes sanity checks. 1 INTRODUCTION Graph neural networks (GNNs) (Gilmer et al., 2017; Hamilton et al., 2017; Velickovic et al., 2018; Dwivedi et al., 2020) have exhibited impressive performance in a wide range of tasks. Such a success comes from the powerful representation learning, which incorporates the graph structure with node and edge features in an end-to-end fashion. With the growing interest in GNNs, the explainability of GNN is attracting considerable attention.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence Is Stupid and Causal Reasoning Won't Fix It
    Artificial Intelligence is stupid and causal reasoning wont fix it J. Mark Bishop1 1 TCIDA, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK Email: [email protected] Abstract Artificial Neural Networks have reached `Grandmaster' and even `super- human' performance' across a variety of games, from those involving perfect- information, such as Go [Silver et al., 2016]; to those involving imperfect- information, such as `Starcraft' [Vinyals et al., 2019]. Such technological developments from AI-labs have ushered concomitant applications across the world of business, where an `AI' brand-tag is fast becoming ubiquitous. A corollary of such widespread commercial deployment is that when AI gets things wrong - an autonomous vehicle crashes; a chatbot exhibits `racist' behaviour; automated credit-scoring processes `discriminate' on gender etc. - there are often significant financial, legal and brand consequences, and the incident becomes major news. As Judea Pearl sees it, the underlying reason for such mistakes is that \... all the impressive achievements of deep learning amount to just curve fitting". The key, Pearl suggests [Pearl and Mackenzie, 2018], is to replace `reasoning by association' with `causal reasoning' - the ability to infer causes from observed phenomena. It is a point that was echoed by Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis in a recent piece for the New York Times: \we need to stop building computer systems that merely get better and better at detecting statistical patterns in data sets { often using an approach known as \Deep Learning" { and start building computer systems that from the moment of arXiv:2008.07371v1 [cs.CY] 20 Jul 2020 their assembly innately grasp three basic concepts: time, space and causal- ity"[Marcus and Davis, 2019].
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV: Reminiscences
    Part IV: Reminiscences 31 Questions and Answers Nils J. Nilsson Few people have contributed as much to artificial intelligence (AI) as has Judea Pearl. Among his several hundred publications, several stand out as among the historically most significant and influential in the theory and practice of AI. With my few pages in this celebratory volume, I join many of his colleagues and former students in showing our gratitude and respect for his inspiration and exemplary career. He is a towering figure in our field. Certainly one key to Judea’s many outstanding achievements (beyond dedication and hard work) is his keen ability to ask the right questions and follow them up with insightful intuitions and penetrating mathematical analyses. His overarching question, it seems to me, is “how is it that humans can do so much with simplistic, unreliable, and uncertain information?” The very name of his UCLA laboratory, the Cognitive Systems Laboratory, seems to proclaim his goal: understanding and automating the most cognitive of all systems, namely humans. In this essay, I’ll focus on the questions and inspirations that motivated his ground-breaking research in three major areas: heuristics, uncertain reasoning, and causality. He has collected and synthesized his work on each of these topics in three important books [Pearl 1984; Pearl 1988; Pearl 2000]. 1 Heuristics Pearl is explicit about what inspired his work on heuristics [Pearl 1984, p. xi]: The study of heuristics draws its inspiration from the ever-amazing ob- servation of how much people can accomplish with that simplistic, un- reliable information source known as intuition.
    [Show full text]
  • Awards and Distinguished Papers
    Awards and Distinguished Papers IJCAI-15 Award for Research Excellence search agenda in their area and will have a first-rate profile of influential re- search results. e Research Excellence award is given to a scientist who has carried out a e award is named for John McCarthy (1927-2011), who is widely rec- program of research of consistently high quality throughout an entire career ognized as one of the founders of the field of artificial intelligence. As well as yielding several substantial results. Past recipients of this honor are the most giving the discipline its name, McCarthy made fundamental contributions illustrious group of scientists from the field of artificial intelligence: John of lasting importance to computer science in general and artificial intelli- McCarthy (1985), Allen Newell (1989), Marvin Minsky (1991), Raymond gence in particular, including time-sharing operating systems, the LISP pro- Reiter (1993), Herbert Simon (1995), Aravind Joshi (1997), Judea Pearl (1999), Donald Michie (2001), Nils Nilsson (2003), Geoffrey E. Hinton gramming languages, knowledge representation, commonsense reasoning, (2005), Alan Bundy (2007), Victor Lesser (2009), Robert Anthony Kowalski and the logicist paradigm in artificial intelligence. e award was estab- (2011), and Hector Levesque (2013). lished with the full support and encouragement of the McCarthy family. e winner of the 2015 Award for Research Excellence is Barbara Grosz, e winner of the 2015 inaugural John McCarthy Award is Bart Selman, Higgins Professor of Natural Sciences at the School of Engineering and Nat- professor at the Department of Computer Science, Cornell University. Pro- ural Sciences, Harvard University. Professor Grosz is recognized for her pio- fessor Selman is recognized for expanding our understanding of problem neering research in natural language processing and in theories and applica- complexity and developing new algorithms for efficient inference.
    [Show full text]
  • Relative Entropy, Probabilistic Inference and AI
    I I RELATIVE ENTROPY, PROBABILISTIC INFERENCE, AND AI John E. Shore I Computer Science and Systems Branch Code 7591 Information Technology Division I Naval Research Laboratory Washington, D. C. 20375 I I. INTRODUCTION For probability distributions q and p, the relative entropy I n "" q · H(q,p) = L.Jqilog -'. (1) i=l p, I is an information-theoretic measure of the dissimilarity between q = q 1, • • · ,qn and p = p1 1 • • • , pn (H is also called cross-entropy, discrimination information, directed divergence, !-divergence, K-L number, among other terms). Various properties of relative entropy have led to its widespread use in information theory. These properties suggest that relative entropy has a role I to play in systems that attempt to perform inference in terms of probability distributions. In this paper, I will review some basic properties of relative entropy as well as its role in probabilistic inference. I will also mention briefly a few existing and potential applications of relative entropy I to so-called artificial intelligence (AI). I II. INFORMATION, ENTROPY, AND RELATIVE-ENTROPY A. Information and Entropy Suppose that some proposition Xi has probability p(xi) of being true. Then the amount of I information that we would obtain if we learn that Xi is true is I ( xi) = - log p ( xi) . (2) !(xi) measures the uncertainty of xi. Except for the base of the logarithm, this common I definition arises essentially from the requirement that the information implicit in two independent propositions be additive. In particular, if xi and xi, i =I=j, are independent propositions with joint probability p(xi/\ x1) = p(xi )p (x; ), then the requirements I !(xi/\ xi)= !(xi)+ !(xi) (3) and I I(xd � 0 (4) are sufficient to establish (2) except for the arbitrary base of the logarithm, which determines the units.
    [Show full text]
  • AAAI-16 / IAAI-16 / EAAI-16 Program
    Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Twenty-Eighth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence The Sixth Symposium on Educational Advances in AI AAAI-16 / IAAI-16 / EAAI-16 Program February 12–17, 2016 Phoenix Convention Center / Hyatt Regency Phoenix Phoenix, Arizona, USA Sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Cosponsored by AI Journal, the National Science Foundation, Baidu, IBM Research, Infosys, Lionbridge, Microsoft Research, Disney Research, University of Southern California/Information Sciences Institute, Yahoo Labs!, ACM/SIGAI, CRA Computing Community Consortium (CCC), and David E. Smith MORNING AFTERNOON EVENING (AFTER 5:00 PM) Friday, February 12 Tutorial Forum Tutorial Forum Student Welcome Reception Workshops Workshops AAAI/SIGAI DC AAAI/SIGAI DC Saturday, February 13 Tutorial Forum Tutorial Forum Speed Dating Workshops Workshops Opening Reception AAAI/SIGAI DC AAAI/SIGAI DC EAAI EAAI Open House Invited Talks Open House Robotics Exhibits Robotics Exhibits Sunday, February 14 AAAI / IAAI Welcome / AAAI Awards Lunch with a Fellow Presidential Address: Dietterich IAAI Invited Talk: Rao AAAI Invited Talk: Krause AAAI / IAAI Technical Program AAAI / IAAI Technical Program AI Job Fair Classic Paper/Robotics Talks What’s Hot Talks / Robotics Talks Poster / Demo Session 1 EAAI EAAI Fellows Dinner Robotics/Vendor Exhibits Robotics/Vendor Exhibits Video Competition Viewing Video Competition Viewing Monday, February 15 Women’s Mentoring Breakfast AAAI Invited Talk:
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence Pioneer Wins A.M. Turing Award 15 March 2012
    Artificial intelligence pioneer wins A.M. Turing Award 15 March 2012 said Vint Cerf, a Google executive who is considered one of the fathers of the Internet. "They have redefined the term 'thinking machine,'" said Cerf, who is also a Turing Award winner. The ACM said Pearl had created a "computational foundation for processing information under uncertainty, a core problem faced by intelligent systems. "His work serves as the standard method for handling uncertainty in computer systems, with Judea Pearl, winner of the 2011 A.M. Turing Award, is applications ranging from medical diagnosis, pictured with his wife Ruth at a Hanukkah celebration at homeland security and genetic counseling to the White House in 2007. natural language understanding and mapping gene expression data," it said. Judea Pearl, a pioneer in the field of artificial "His influence extends beyond artificial intelligence intelligence, has been awarded the prestigious and even computer science, to human reasoning 2011 A.M. Turing Award. and the philosophy of science." Pearl, 75, was being honored for "innovations that (c) 2012 AFP enabled remarkable advances in the partnership between humans and machines," the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) said. The award, named for British mathematician Alan M. Turing and considered the "Nobel Prize in Computing," carries a $250,000 prize sponsored by computer chip giant Intel and Internet titan Google. Pearl is a professor of computer science at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is the father of Daniel Pearl, a journalist for The Wall Street Journal who was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan in 2002. "(Judea Pearl's) accomplishments over the last 30 years have provided the theoretical basis for progress in artificial intelligence and led to extraordinary achievements in machine learning," 1 / 2 APA citation: Artificial intelligence pioneer wins A.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Formalizing Common Sense Reasoning for Scalable Inconsistency-Robust Information Integration Using Direct Logictm Reasoning and the Actor Model
    Formalizing common sense reasoning for scalable inconsistency-robust information integration using Direct LogicTM Reasoning and the Actor Model Carl Hewitt. http://carlhewitt.info This paper is dedicated to Alonzo Church, Stanisław Jaśkowski, John McCarthy and Ludwig Wittgenstein. ABSTRACT People use common sense in their interactions with large software systems. This common sense needs to be formalized so that it can be used by computer systems. Unfortunately, previous formalizations have been inadequate. For example, because contemporary large software systems are pervasively inconsistent, it is not safe to reason about them using classical logic. Our goal is to develop a standard foundation for reasoning in large-scale Internet applications (including sense making for natural language) by addressing the following issues: inconsistency robustness, classical contrapositive inference bug, and direct argumentation. Inconsistency Robust Direct Logic is a minimal fix to Classical Logic without the rule of Classical Proof by Contradiction [i.e., (Ψ├ (¬))├¬Ψ], the addition of which transforms Inconsistency Robust Direct Logic into Classical Logic. Inconsistency Robust Direct Logic makes the following contributions over previous work: Direct Inference Direct Argumentation (argumentation directly expressed) Inconsistency-robust Natural Deduction that doesn’t require artifices such as indices (labels) on propositions or restrictions on reiteration Intuitive inferences hold including the following: . Propositional equivalences (except absorption) including Double Negation and De Morgan . -Elimination (Disjunctive Syllogism), i.e., ¬Φ, (ΦΨ)├T Ψ . Reasoning by disjunctive cases, i.e., (), (├T ), (├T Ω)├T Ω . Contrapositive for implication i.e., Ψ⇒ if and only if ¬⇒¬Ψ . Soundness, i.e., ├T ((├T) ⇒ ) . Inconsistency Robust Proof by Contradiction, i.e., ├T (Ψ⇒ (¬))⇒¬Ψ 1 A fundamental goal of Inconsistency Robust Direct Logic is to effectively reason about large amounts of pervasively inconsistent information using computer information systems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Two Day ACM Turing Award Celebrations-Live Web Stream @
    ACM Coordinators Department of Information Technology Dr.R.Suganya & Mr.A.Sheik Abdullah Assistant Professors, The Department of Information Technology is A Two day ACM Turing Award Department of Information Technology established in the year 1999. It offers B.Tech (Information Technology) UG Programme since 1999 and M.E. Celebrations-Live Web Stream Thiagarjar College of Engineering (Computer Science and Information Security) PG Mail id: [email protected], [email protected] programme since 2014. The Department is supported by @ TCE PH: +919150245157, +919994216590 well experienced and qualified faculty members. The Department focuses on imparting practical and project based training to student through Outcome Based 23-24th June, 2017 Thiagarajar College of Engineering Education. The Department has different Special Interest Thiagarajar College of Engineering, an autonomous govt. Groups (SIGs) such as Data Engineering, Distributed aided Institution, affiliated to the Anna University is one Systems, Mobile Technologies, Information Security and among the several educational and philanthropic Management. These SIGs work on promoting research and institutions founded by Philanthropist and Industrialist development activities. The Department has sponsored research projects supported by funding organisations like Late. Shri.Karumuttu Thiagarajan Chettiar. It was UGC, AICTE, Industry supported Enterprise Mobility Lab established in the year 1957 and granted Autonomy in the by Motorola and Data Analytics Lab by CDAC, Chennai. year 1987. TCE is funded by Central and State Governments and Management. TCE offers 8 Undergraduate Programmes, 13 Postgraduate Programmes About the Award Celebrations Organized by and Doctoral Programmes in Engineering, Sciences and Architecture. TCE is an approved QIP centre for pursuing The ACM A.M.
    [Show full text]
  • AAAI Presidential Address: Steps Toward Robust Artificial Intelligence
    Articles AAAI Presidential Address: Steps Toward Robust Artificial Intelligence Thomas G. Dietterich I Recent advances in artificial intelli- et me begin by acknowledging the recent death of gence are encouraging governments and Marvin Minsky. Professor Minsky was, of course, corporations to deploy AI in high-stakes Lone of the four authors of the original Dartmouth settings including driving cars Summer School proposal to develop artificial intelligence autonomously, managing the power (McCarthy et al. 1955). In addition to his many contri- grid, trading on stock exchanges, and controlling autonomous weapons sys- butions to the intellectual foundations of artificial intel- tems. Such applications require AI ligence, I remember him most for his iconoclastic and methods to be robust to both the known playful attitude to research ideas. No established idea unknowns (those uncertain aspects of could long withstand his critical assaults, and up to his the world about which the computer can death, he continually urged us all to be more ambitious, reason explicitly) and the unknown to think more deeply, and to keep our eyes focused on unknowns (those aspects of the world the fundamental questions. that are not captured by the system’s In 1959, Minsky wrote an influential essay titled Steps models). This article discusses recent progress in AI and then describes eight Toward Artificial Intelligence (Minsky 1961), in which he ideas related to robustness that are summarized the state of AI research and sketched a path being pursued within the AI research forward. In his honor, I have extended his title to incor- community. While these ideas are a porate the topic that I want to discuss today: How can we start, we need to devote more attention make artificial intelligence systems that are robust in the to the challenges of dealing with the face of lack of knowledge about the world? known and unknown unknowns.
    [Show full text]