Warped Gaussian processes (WGP) [1] model output observations in regression tasks as a parametric nonlinear transformation of a Gaussian process (GP). The use of this nonlinear transformation, which is included as part of the probabilistic model, was shown to enhance performance by providing a better prior model on several data sets. In order to learn its parameters, maximum likelihood was used. In this work we show that it is possible to use a non-parametric nonlinear transformation in WGP and variationally integrate it out. The resulting Bayesian WGP is then able to work in scenarios in which the maximum likelihood WGP failed: Low data regime, data with censored values, classification, etc. We demonstrate the superior performance of Bayesian warped GPs on several real data sets.

A new methodology is developed for joint analysis of a matrix and accompanying documents, with the documents associated with the matrix rows/columns. The documents are modeled with a focused topic model, inferring interpretable latent binary features for each document. A new matrix decomposition is developed, with latent binary features associated with the rows/columns, and with imposition of a low-rank constraint. The matrix decomposition and topic model are coupled by sharing the latent binary feature vectors associated with each. The model is applied to roll-call data, with the associated documents defined by the legislation. Advantages of the proposed model are demonstrated for prediction of votes on a new piece of legislation, based only on the observed text of legislation. The coupling of the text and legislation is also shown to yield insight into the properties of the matrix decomposition for roll-call data.

We propose a formal treatment of scenarios in the context of a dialectical argumentation formalism for qualitative reasoning about uncertain propositions. Our formalism extends prior work in which arguments for and against uncertain propositions were presented and compared in interaction spaces called Agoras. We now define the notion of a scenario in this framework and use it to define a set of qualitative uncertainty labels for propositions across a collection of scenarios. This work is intended to lead to a formal theory of scenarios and scenario analysis.

In this paper we propose an extension of Defeasible Logic to represent and compute three concepts of defeasible permission. In particular, we discuss different types of explicit permissive norms that work as exceptions to opposite obligations. Moreover, we show how strong permissions can be represented both with, and without introducing a new consequence relation for inferring conclusions from explicit permissive norms. Finally, we illustrate how a preference operator applicable to contrary-to-duty obligations can be combined with a new operator representing ordered sequences of strong permissions which derogate from prohibitions. The logical system is studied from a computational standpoint and is shown to have liner computational complexity. The concept of permission plays an important role in many normative domains in that it may be crucial in characterising notions such as those of authorisation and derogation [11,30,33]. For example, sometimes it may happen that we mistakenly drive to a building site, or a roadwork restricted area, with signs out saying "No admittance.

We analyse the computational complexity of three problems in judgment aggregation: (1) computing a collective judgment from a profile of individual judgments (the winner determination problem); (2) deciding whether a given agent can influence the outcome of a judgment aggregation procedure in her favour by reporting insincere judgments (the strategic manipulation problem); and (3) deciding whether a given judgment aggregation scenario is guaranteed to result in a logically consistent outcome, independently from what the judgments supplied by the individuals are (the problem of the safety of the agenda). We provide results both for specific aggregation procedures (the quota rules, the premise-based procedure, and a distance-based procedure) and for classes of aggregation procedures characterised in terms of fundamental axioms.

There are several contexts of non-monotonic reasoning where a priority between rules is established whose purpose is preventing conflicts. One formalism that has been widely employed for non-monotonic reasoning is the sceptical one known as Defeasible Logic. In Defeasible Logic the tool used for conflict resolution is a preference relation between rules, that establishes the priority among them. In this paper we investigate how to modify such a preference relation in a defeasible logic theory in order to change the conclusions of the theory itself. We argue that the approach we adopt is applicable to legal reasoning where users, in general, cannot change facts or rules, but can propose their preferences about the relative strength of the rules. We provide a comprehensive study of the possible combinatorial cases and we identify and analyse the cases where the revision process is successful. After this analysis, we identify three revision/update operators and study them against the AGM postulates for belief revision operators, to discover that only a part of these postulates are satisfied by the three operators.

There is growing interest in automating the detection of interesting new developments in science and technology. BAE Systems is pursuing ARBITER (Abductive Reasoning Based on Indicators and Topics of EmeRgence), a multi-disciplinary study and development effort to analyze full- text and metadata for indicators of emergent technologies and scientific fields. To define these indicators, our team has applied the primary insights of actant network theory developed within the disciplines of Science and Technology Studies and the history of technology and science to create a pragmatic theory of technoscientific emergence. Specifically, this practical theory articulates emergence in terms of the robustness of actant networks. This applied actant-network theory currently guides our definition of indicators and indicator patterns for the ARBITER system, and represents a novel contribution to the discussion of emergent technologies and fields. Several elements of our theory were validated with 15 case studies and 25 example technologies.

We describe ANGELINA3, a system that can automatically develop games along a defined theme, by selecting appropriate multimedia content from a variety of sources and incorporating it into a game's design. We discuss these capabilities in the context of the FACE model for assessing progress in the building of creative systems, and discuss how ANGELINA3 can be improved through further work.

Legislative behavior centers around the votes made by lawmakers. These votes are captured in roll call data, a matrix with lawmakers in the rows and proposed legislation in the columns. We illustrate a sample of roll call votes for the United States Senate in Figure 1. The seminal work of Poole and Rosenthal (1985) introduced the ideal point model, using roll call data to infer the latent political positions of the lawmakers. The ideal point model is a latent factor model of binary data and an application of item-response theory (Lord 1980) to roll call data. It gives each lawmaker a latent political position along a single dimension and then uses these points (called the ideal points) in a model of the votes.

In this article, I consider the effects of networking on the emergence of intelligence in individuals and societies. The following hypothesis promotes and sustains this investigation: The General Collective Problem Solving Capacity Hypothesis. Society possesses a general, collective problem solving capacity. The General Collective Problem Solving Capacity Hypothesis implies that the same general problem solving capacity that society uses, for example, to develop language, is used to solve problems in mathematics, science, business, musical composition and performance, sports contests, social interactions, politics and daily life. "All life is problem solving" [47]; all problem solving is a strictly analogous process. Let's adopt some notational conventions that will allow us to make the observations in the discussion that follows more precise. The formulas used in the definitions are sometimes modified by a subscript relevant to the context in which they are used.