In this study, we introduce general frame of MAny Connected Intelligent Particles Systems (MACIPS). Connections and interconnections between particles get a complex behavior of such merely simple system (system in system).Contribution of natural computing, under information granulation theory, are the main topic of this spacious skeleton. Upon this clue, we organize different algorithms involved a few prominent intelligent computing and approximate reasoning methods such as self organizing feature map (SOM)[9], Neuro- Fuzzy Inference System[10], Rough Set Theory (RST)[11], collaborative clustering, Genetic Algorithm and Ant Colony System. Upon this, we have employed our algorithms on the several engineering systems, especially emerged systems in Civil and Mineral processing. In other process, we investigated how our algorithms can be taken as a linkage of government-society interaction, where government catches various fashions of behavior: solid (absolute) or flexible. So, transition of such society, by changing of connectivity parameters (noise) from order to disorder is inferred. Add to this, one may find an indirect mapping among finical systems and eventual market fluctuations with MACIPS. In the following sections, we will mention the main topics of the suggested proposal, briefly Details of the proposed algorithms can be found in the references.

When implementing a propagator for a constraint, one must decide about variants: When implementing min, should one also implement max? Should one implement linear equations both with and without coefficients? Constraint variants are ubiquitous: implementing them requires considerable (if not prohibitive) effort and decreases maintainability, but will deliver better performance. This paper shows how to use variable views, previously introduced for an implementation architecture, to derive perfect propagator variants. A model for views and derived propagators is introduced. Derived propagators are proved to be indeed perfect in that they inherit essential properties such as correctness and domain and bounds consistency. Techniques for systematically deriving propagators such as transformation, generalization, specialization, and channeling are developed for several variable domains. We evaluate the massive impact of derived propagators. Without derived propagators, Gecode would require 140 000 rather than 40 000 lines of code for propagators.

We describe decomposition during search (DDS), an integration of And/Or tree search into propagation-based constraint solvers. The presented search algorithm dynamically decomposes sub-problems of a constraint satisfaction problem into independent partial problems, avoiding redundant work. The paper discusses how DDS interacts with key features that make propagation-based solvers successful: constraint propagation, especially for global constraints, and dynamic search heuristics. We have implemented DDS for the Gecode constraint programming library.

The way a rational agent changes her belief in certain propositions/hypotheses in the light of new evidence lies at the heart of Bayesian inference. The basic natural assumption, as summarized in van Fraassen's Reflection Principle ([1984]), would be that in the absence of new evidence the belief should not change. Yet, there are examples that are claimed to violate this assumption. The apparent paradox presented by such examples, if not settled, would demonstrate the inconsistency and/or incompleteness of the Bayesian approach and without eliminating this inconsistency, the approach cannot be regarded as scientific. The Sleeping Beauty Problem is just such an example. The existing attempts to solve the problem fall into three categories. The first two share the view that new evidence is absent, but differ about the conclusion of whether Sleeping Beauty should change her belief or not, and why. The third category is characterized by the view that, after all, new evidence (although hidden from the initial view) is involved. My solution is radically different and does not fall in either of these categories. I deflate the paradox by arguing that the two different degrees of belief presented in the Sleeping Beauty Problem are in fact beliefs in two different propositions, i.e. there is no need to explain the (un)change of belief.

This is a concise and accessible introduction to the field of game theory. The audience for game theory has drastically expanded and now is used in diverse disciplines such as political science, biology, psychology, economics, linguistics, sociology, and computer science. The book covers the main classes of games, their representations, and the main concepts used to analyze them. ISBN 9781598295931, 88 pages.

Making a decision is often a matter of listing and comparing positive and negative arguments. In such cases, the evaluation scale for decisions should be considered bipolar, that is, negative and positive values should be explicitly distinguished. That is what is done, for example, in Cumulative Prospect Theory. However, contraryto the latter framework that presupposes genuine numerical assessments, human agents often decide on the basis of an ordinal ranking of the pros and the cons, and by focusing on the most salient arguments. In other terms, the decision process is qualitative as well as bipolar. In this article, based on a bipolar extension of possibility theory, we define and axiomatically characterize several decision rules tailored for the joint handling of positive and negative arguments in an ordinal setting. The simplest rules can be viewed as extensions of the maximin and maximax criteria to the bipolar case, and consequently suffer from poor decisive power. More decisive rules that refine the former are also proposed. These refinements agree both with principles of efficiency and with the spirit of order-of-magnitude reasoning, that prevails in qualitative decision theory. The most refined decision rule uses leximin rankings of the pros and the cons, and the ideas of counting arguments of equal strength and cancelling pros by cons. It is shown to come down to a special case of Cumulative Prospect Theory, and to subsume the ``Take the Best'' heuristic studied by cognitive psychologists.

In this paper, we show that a continuous spectrum of randomisation exists, in which most existing tree randomisations are only operating around the two ends of the spectrum. That leaves a huge part of the spectrum largely unexplored. We propose a base learner VR-Tree which generates trees with variable-randomness. VR-Trees are able to span from the conventional deterministic trees to the complete-random trees using a probabilistic parameter. Using VR-Trees as the base models, we explore the entire spectrum of randomised ensembles, together with Bagging and Random Subspace. We discover that the two halves of the spectrum have their distinct characteristics; and the understanding of which allows us to propose a new approach in building better decision tree ensembles. We name this approach Coalescence, which coalesces a number of points in the random-half of the spectrum. Coalescence acts as a committee of ``experts'' to cater for unforeseeable conditions presented in training data. Coalescence is found to perform better than any single operating point in the spectrum, without the need to tune to a specific level of randomness. In our empirical study, Coalescence ranks top among the benchmarking ensemble methods including Random Forests, Random Subspace and C5 Boosting; and only Coalescence is significantly better than Bagging and Max-Diverse Ensemble among all the methods in the comparison. Although Coalescence is not significantly better than Random Forests, we have identified conditions under which one will perform better than the other.

Decision-theoretic planning is a popular approach to sequential decision making problems, because it treats uncertainty in sensing and acting in a principled way. In single-agent frameworks like MDPs and POMDPs, planning can be carried out by resorting to Q-value functions: an optimal Q-value function Q* is computed in a recursive manner by dynamic programming, and then an optimal policy is extracted from Q*. In this paper we study whether similar Q-value functions can be defined for decentralized POMDP models (Dec-POMDPs), and how policies can be extracted from such value functions. We define two forms of the optimal Q-value function for Dec-POMDPs: one that gives a normative description as the Q-value function of an optimal pure joint policy and another one that is sequentially rational and thus gives a recipe for computation. This computation, however, is infeasible for all but the smallest problems. Therefore, we analyze various approximate Q-value functions that allow for efficient computation. We describe how they relate, and we prove that they all provide an upper bound to the optimal Q-value function Q*. Finally, unifying some previous approaches for solving Dec-POMDPs, we describe a family of algorithms for extracting policies from such Q-value functions, and perform an experimental evaluation on existing test problems, including a new firefighting benchmark problem.

We study the complexity of cost-optimal classical planning over propositional state variables and unary-effect actions. We discover novel problem fragments for which such optimization is tractable, and identify certain conditions that differentiate between tractable and intractable problems. These results are based on exploiting both structural and syntactic characteristics of planning problems. Specifically, following Brafman and Domshlak (2003), we relate the complexity of planning and the topology of the causal graph. The main results correspond to tractability of cost-optimal planning for propositional problems with polytree causal graphs that either have O(1)-bounded in-degree, or are induced by actions having at most one prevail condition each. Almost all our tractability results are based on a constructive proof technique that connects between certain tools from planning and tractable constraint optimization, and we believe this technique is of interest on its own due to a clear evidence for its robustness.

In the last year more than 70,000 people have been brought to the UK hospitals with serious injuries. Each time a clinician has to urgently take a patient through a screening procedure to make a reliable decision on the trauma treatment. Typically, such procedure comprises around 20 tests; however the condition of a trauma patient remains very difficult to be tested properly. What happens if these tests are ambiguously interpreted, and information about the severity of the injury will come misleading? The mistake in a decision can be fatal: using a mild treatment can put a patient at risk of dying from posttraumatic shock, while using an overtreatment can also cause death. How can we reduce the risk of the death caused by unreliable decisions? It has been shown that probabilistic reasoning, based on the Bayesian methodology of averaging over decision models, allows clinicians to evaluate the uncertainty in decision making. Based on this methodology, in this paper we aim at selecting the most important screening tests, keeping a high performance. We assume that the probabilistic reasoning within the Bayesian methodology allows us to discover new relationships between the screening tests and uncertainty in decisions. In practice, selection of the most informative tests can also reduce the cost of a screening procedure in trauma care centers. In our experiments we use the UK Trauma data to compare the efficiency of the proposed technique in terms of the performance. We also compare the uncertainty in decisions in terms of entropy.