Finding satisfying assignments for the variables involved in a set of constraints can be cast as a (bounded) model generation problem: search for (bounded) models of a theory in some logic. The state-of-the-art approach for bounded model generation for rich knowledge representation languages like ASP and FO(.) and a CSP modeling language such as Zinc, is ground-and-solve: reduce the theory to a ground or propositional one and apply a search algorithm to the resulting theory. An important bottleneck is the blow-up of the size of the theory caused by the grounding phase. Lazily grounding the theory during search is a way to overcome this bottleneck. We present a theoretical framework and an implementation in the context of the FO(.) knowledge representation language. Instead of grounding all parts of a theory, justifications are derived for some parts of it. Given a partial assignment for the grounded part of the theory and valid justifications for the formulas of the non-grounded part, the justifications provide a recipe to construct a complete assignment that satisfies the non-grounded part. When a justification for a particular formula becomes invalid during search, a new one is derived; if that fails, the formula is split in a part to be grounded and a part that can be justified. Experimental results illustrate the power and generality of this approach.

Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) has proven an effective tool for two-view dimension reduction due to its profound theoretical foundation and success in practical applications. In respect of multi-view learning, however, it is limited by its capability of only handling data represented by two-view features, while in many real-world applications, the number of views is frequently many more. Although the ad hoc way of simultaneously exploring all possible pairs of features can numerically deal with multi-view data, it ignores the high order statistics (correlation information) which can only be discovered by simultaneously exploring all features. Therefore, in this work, we develop tensor CCA (TCCA) which straightforwardly yet naturally generalizes CCA to handle the data of an arbitrary number of views by analyzing the covariance tensor of the different views. TCCA aims to directly maximize the canonical correlation of multiple (more than two) views. Crucially, we prove that the multi-view canonical correlation maximization problem is equivalent to finding the best rank-1 approximation of the data covariance tensor, which can be solved efficiently using the well-known alternating least squares (ALS) algorithm. As a consequence, the high order correlation information contained in the different views is explored and thus a more reliable common subspace shared by all features can be obtained. In addition, a non-linear extension of TCCA is presented. Experiments on various challenge tasks, including large scale biometric structure prediction, internet advertisement classification and web image annotation, demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

OXFORD 1994 Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford 0X2 6DP Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bombay Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto and associated companies in Berlin lbadan Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York 0 E. K. Furukawa, D. Michie, and S. Muggleton, 1994 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms and in other countries should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. The founder of modern computational logic, J.A. Robinson, opens this volume with a chapter on the field's great forefathers John von Neumann and Alan Turing.

When you lose a game of chess to a computer then don't pretend that you didn't think at the game.

Machine Intelligence 1 (1967) (eds N. Collins and D. Michie) Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh Machine Intelligence 2 (1968) (eds E. Dale and D. Michie) Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh (1 and 2 published as one volume in 1971 by Edinburgh University Press) (eds N. Collins, E. Dale, and D. Michie) Machine Intelligence 3 (1968) (ed. CLARENDON PRESS - OXFORD 1991 Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford 0X2 6DP Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and associated companies in Berlin lbadan Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press, New York C J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, and E. Tyugu, 1991 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Machine intelligence. ISBN 0-19-853823-5 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Machine intelligence 12: towards an automated logic of human thought /edited by J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, and It is a pleasure to contribute an introduction to this twelfth volume of the international Machine Intelligence series. My own work has, at times, cast me in the scientific roles of experimenter, instrumentation designer, and administrator.

They produce one set of rules from one set of data and have no memory which permits them to add to a knowledge base by further learning. Incremental learning systems remember the concepts which they have learned and can use them for further learning and problem solving. Some examples are, CONFUCIUS (Cohen 1978) and Marvin (Sammut 1981). These programs build a model of their task environment through successive learning experiences which require interaction with the environment. The task that we consider in this paper involves a program learning to control an agent in a reactive environment. This is an environment where changes occur in response to actions. Agents other than the learner may be present. As an agent accumulates experience, it constructs a world model or theory of behaviour which can be used to predict the outcome f Present address: Department of Computer Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Machine Intelligence 1 (1967) (eds N. Collins and D. Michie) Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh Machine Intelligence 2 (1968) (eds E. Dale and D. Michie) Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh (1 and 2 published as one volume in 1971 by Edinburgh University Press) (eds N. Collins, E. Dale, and D. Michie). CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD 1988 Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford 0X2 6DP Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and associated companies in Berlin lbadan Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press, New York J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, and J. Richards 1988 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Machine Intelligence. Richard J. 006.3 ISBN 0-19-853718-2 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset and printed in Northern Ireland at The Universities Press (Belfast) Ltd. Held at intervals in Scotland, the first seven International Machine Intelligence Workshops spanning the period of 1965-71 were involved in developing the new subject internationally--in those early days mainly as a mid-Atlantic phenomenon.

Reprinted with permission from Analytical Chemistry, August 1976, Vol.48, No.9, pp.1368-1375.

The aim of this note is to discuss the reasons why temporal logic, specifically Linear Temporal Logic [7] might not be suitable to check whether the specifications of a system comply with a set of normative requirements. The debate whether it is possible to use temporal logic for the representation of norms is not a novel one (see for example [9]), and while the argument had settled for a while, the past decade saw a resurgence of the topic with many works in the fields of normative multi-agents and business process compliance advocating temporal logic as the formalism to express normative constraints on agent behaviours and process executions.

In Learning with Label Proportions (LLP), the objective is to learn a supervised classifier when, instead of labels, only label proportions for bags of observations are known. This setting has broad practical relevance, in particular for privacy preserving data processing. We first show that the mean operator, a statistic which aggregates all labels, is minimally sufficient for the minimization of many proper scoring losses with linear (or kernelized) classifiers without using labels. We provide a fast learning algorithm that estimates the mean operator via a manifold regularizer with guaranteed approximation bounds. Then, we present an iterative learning algorithm that uses this as initialization. We ground this algorithm in Rademacher-style generalization bounds that fit the LLP setting, introducing a generalization of Rademacher complexity and a Label Proportion Complexity measure. This latter algorithm optimizes tractable bounds for the corresponding bag-empirical risk. Experiments are provided on fourteen domains, whose size ranges up to 300K observations. They display that our algorithms are scalable and tend to consistently outperform the state of the art in LLP. Moreover, in many cases, our algorithms compete with or are just percents of AUC away from the Oracle that learns knowing all labels. On the largest domains, half a dozen proportions can suffice, i.e. roughly 40K times less than the total number of labels.