Voting is a simple mechanism to combine together the preferences of multiple agents. Unfortunately, agents may try to manipulate the result by mis-reporting their preferences. One barrier that might exist to such manipulation is computational complexity. In particular, it has been shown that it is NP-hard to compute how to manipulate a number of different voting rules. How- ever, NP-hardness only bounds the worst-case complexity. Recent theoretical results suggest that manipulation may often be easy in practice. In this paper, we show that empirical studies are useful in improving our understanding of this issue. We consider two settings which represent the two types of complexity results that have been identified in this area: manipulation with un-weighted votes by a single agent, and manipulation with weighted votes by a coalition of agents. In the first case, we consider Single Transferable Voting (STV), and in the second case, we consider veto voting. STV is one of the few voting rules used in practice where it is NP-hard to compute how a single agent can manipulate the result when votes are unweighted. It also appears one of the harder voting rules to manipulate since it involves multiple rounds. On the other hand, veto voting is one of the simplest representatives of voting rules where it is NP-hard to compute how a coalition of weighted agents can manipulate the result. In our experiments, we sample a number of distributions of votes including uniform, correlated and real world elections. In many of the elections in our experiments, it was easy to compute how to manipulate the result or to prove that manipulation was impossible. Even when we were able to identify a situation in which manipulation was hard to compute (e.g. when votes are highly correlated and the election is hung), we found that the computational difficulty of computing manipulations was somewhat precarious (e.g. with such hung elections, even a single uncorrelated voter was enough to make manipulation easy to compute).

A decision process in which rewards depend on history rather than merely on the current state is called a decision process with non-Markovian rewards (NMRDP). In decision-theoretic planning, where many desirable behaviours are more naturally expressed as properties of execution sequences rather than as properties of states, NMRDPs form a more natural model than the commonly adopted fully Markovian decision process (MDP) model. While the more tractable solution methods developed for MDPs do not directly apply in the presence of non-Markovian rewards, a number of solution methods for NMRDPs have been proposed in the literature. These all exploit a compact specification of the non-Markovian reward function in temporal logic, to automatically translate the NMRDP into an equivalent MDP which is solved using efficient MDP solution methods. This paper presents NMRDPP (Non-Markovian Reward Decision Process Planner), a software platform for the development and experimentation of methods for decision-theoretic planning with non-Markovian rewards. The current version of NMRDPP implements, under a single interface, a family of methods based on existing as well as new approaches which we describe in detail. These include dynamic programming, heuristic search, and structured methods. Using NMRDPP, we compare the methods and identify certain problem features that affect their performance. NMRDPPs treatment of non-Markovian rewards is inspired by the treatment of domain-specific search control knowledge in the TLPlan planner, which it incorporates as a special case. In the First International Probabilistic Planning Competition, NMRDPP was able to compete and perform well in both the domain-independent and hand-coded tracks, using search control knowledge in the latter.

We present a uniform non-monotonic solution to the problems of reasoning about action on the basis of an argumentation-theoretic approach. Our theory is provably correct relative to a sensible minimisation policy introduced on top of a temporal propositional logic. Sophisticated problem domains can be formalised in our framework. As much attention of researchers in the field has been paid to the traditional and basic problems in reasoning about actions such as the frame, the qualification and the ramification problems, approaches to these problems within our formalisation lie at heart of the expositions presented in this paper.

Wind energy plays an increasing role in the supply of energy world-wide. The energy output of a wind farm is highly dependent on the weather condition present at the wind farm. If the output can be predicted more accurately, energy suppliers can coordinate the collaborative production of different energy sources more efficiently to avoid costly overproductions. With this paper, we take a computer science perspective on energy prediction based on weather data and analyze the important parameters as well as their correlation on the energy output. To deal with the interaction of the different parameters we use symbolic regression based on the genetic programming tool DataModeler. Our studies are carried out on publicly available weather and energy data for a wind farm in Australia. We reveal the correlation of the different variables for the energy output. The model obtained for energy prediction gives a very reliable prediction of the energy output for newly given weather data.

Using these custom tools requires have been busily converting material from paper and microfilm training and a skilled workforce. We show in this paper that into digital domain. Newspapers, books, journals and some parts of that process can be distributed to a pool of even individual letters are finding themselves inside large unskilled volunteers with good results.

This paper describes a program of research that aims to develop and test healthcare robots for elder care. We describe the aims of the project, the robots developed, and studies we have performed in HRI in elder care. We highlight research design issues that have become apparent in the retirement home setting when testing robots. These issues are relevant to robotics researchers wishing to evaluate the effects of robotic care on older people’s quality of life.

We address the problem of building a continuous occupancy representation of the environment with ranging sensors. Observations from such sensors provide two types of information: a line segment or a beam indicating no returns along them (free-space); a point or return at the end of the segment representing an occupied surface. To model these two types of observations in a principled statistical manner, we propose a novel methodology based on integral kernels. We show that integral kernels can be directly incorporated into a Gaussian process classification (GPC) framework to provide a continuous non-parametric Bayesian estimation of occupancy. Directly handling line segment and point observations avoids the need to discretise segments into points, reducing the computational cost of GPC inference and learning. We present experiments on 2D and 3D datasets demonstrating the benefits of the approach.

We prove that it is NP-hard for a coalition of two manipulators to compute how to manipulate the Borda voting rule. This resolves one of the last open problems in the computational complexity of manipulating common voting rules. Because of this NP-hardness, we treat computing a manipulation as an approximation problem where we try to minimize the number of manipulators. Based on ideas from bin packing and multiprocessor scheduling, we propose two new approximation methods to compute manipulations of the Borda rule. Experiments show that these methods significantly outperform the previous best known approximation method. We are able to find optimal manipulations in almost all the randomly generated elections tested. Our results suggest that, whilst computing a manipulation of the Borda rule by a coalition is NP-hard, computational complexity may provide only a weak barrier against manipulation in practice.

Bagging is a simple yet effective design which combines multiple single learners to form an ensemble for prediction. Despite its popular usage in many real-world applications, existing research is mainly concerned with studying unstable learners as the key to ensure the performance gain of a bagging predictor, with many key factors remaining unclear. For example, it is not clear when a bagging predictor can outperform a single learner and what is the expected performance gain when different learning algorithms were used to form a bagging predictor. In this paper, we carry out comprehensive empirical studies to evaluate bagging predictors by using 12 different learning algorithms and 48 benchmark data-sets. Our analysis uses robustness and stability decompositions to characterize different learning algorithms, through which we rank all learning algorithms and comparatively study their bagging predictors to draw conclusions. Our studies assert that both stability and robustness are key requirements to ensure the high performance for building a bagging predictor. In addition, our studies demonstrated that bagging is statistically superior to most single base learners, except for KNN and Naïve Bayes (NB). Multi-layer perception (MLP), Naïve Bayes Trees (NBTree), and PART are the learning algorithms with the best bagging performance.

Recently the general Game Description Language (GDL) has been extended so as to cover arbitrary games with incomplete/imperfect information. Learning — without human intervention — to play such games poses a reasoning challenge for general game-playing systems that is much more intricate than in case of complete information games. Action formalisms like the Situation Calculus have been developed for precisely this purpose. In this paper we present a full embedding of the Game Description Language into the Situation Calculus (with Scherl and Levesque's knowledge fluent ). We formally prove that this provides a sound and complete reasoning method for players' knowledge about game states as well as about the knowledge of the other players.