Transfer learning has recently gained popularity due to the development of algorithms that can successfully generalize information across multiple tasks. This article focuses on transfer in the context of reinforcement learning domains, a general learning framework where an agent acts in an environment to maximize a reward signal. The goals of this article are to (1) familiarize readers with the transfer learning problem in reinforcement learning domains, (2) explain why the problem is both interesting and difficult, (3) present a selection of existing techniques that demonstrate different solutions, and (4) provide representative open problems in the hope of encouraging additional research in this exciting area.

The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence was pleased to present the 2010 Fall Symposium Series, held Thursday through Saturday, November 11-13, at the Westin Arlington Gateway in Arlington, Virginia. The titles of the eight symposia are as follows: (1) Cognitive and Metacognitive Educational Systems; (2) Commonsense Knowledge; (3) Complex Adaptive Systems: Resilience, Robustness, and Evolvability; (4) Computational Models of Narrative; (5) Dialog with Robots; (6) Manifold Learning and Its Applications; (7) Proactive Assistant Agents; and (8) Quantum Informatics for Cognitive, Social, and Semantic Processes. The highlights of each symposium are presented in this report.

Transfer learning occurs when, after gaining experience from learning how to solve source problems, the same learner exploits this experience to improve performance and/or learning on target problems. In transfer learning, the differences between the source and target problems characterize the transfer distance. CBR can support transfer learning methods in multiple ways. We illustrate how CBR and transfer learning interact and characterize three approaches for using CBR in transfer learning: (1) as a transfer learning method, (2) for problem learning, and (3) to transfer knowledge between sets of problems.

This article argues that currently the largest gap between human and machine learning is learning algorithms' inability to perform deep transfer, that is, generalize from one domain to another domain containing different objects, classes, properties and relations. We argue that second-order Markov logic is ideally suited for this purpose, and propose an approach based on it. Our algorithm discovers structural regularities in the source domain in the form of Markov logic formulas with predicate variables, and instantiates these formulas with predicates from the target domain. Our approach has successfully transferred learned knowledge among molecular biology, Web and social network domains.

The AAAI-10 Workshop program was held Sunday and Monday, July 11–12, 2010 at the Westin Peachtree Plaza in Atlanta, Georgia. The AAAI-10 workshop program included 13 workshops covering a wide range of topics in artificial intelligence. The titles of the workshops were AI and Fun, Bridging the Gap between Task and Motion Planning, Collaboratively-Built Knowledge Sources and Artificial Intelligence, Goal-Directed Autonomy, Intelligent Security, Interactive Decision Theory and Game Theory, Metacognition for Robust Social Systems, Model Checking and Artificial Intelligence, Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning, Plan, Activity, and Intent Recognition, Statistical Relational AI, Visual Representations and Reasoning, and Abstraction, Reformulation, and Approximation. This article presents short summaries of those events.

We at the NASA laboratory believed that our best work came when we simultaneously advanced AI theory and provided immediately usable solutions for current NASA problems. "Solving Large-Scale Constraint Satisfaction and Scheduling Problems Using a Heuristic Repair Method," by Steve Minton, Mark Johnston, Andy Phillips, and Phil Laird clearly achieved both. It proved that local search and repair was applicable to a wide class of constraint satisfaction problems and clearly explicated the theory behind that proof.

Much of AI is concerned with the design of intelligent agents. As we extend the ideas of mechanism design from economic theory, the mechanisms (or rules) become algorithmic and many new challenges surface. Starting with a short background on mechanism design theory, the aim of this paper is to provide a nontechnical exposition of recent results on dynamic incentive mechanisms, which provide rules for the coordination of agents in sequential decision problems. The framework of dynamic mechanism design embraces coordinated decision-making both in the context of uncertainty about the world external to an agent and also in regard to the dynamics of agent preferences.

We briefly survey the rise of game theory as a topic of study in artificial intelligence, and explain the term algorithmic game theory. Finally, we give short summaries of each of the six articles appearing in this issue.

This paper presents a robust methodology for grounding vocabulary in robots. A social language grounding experiment is designed, where, a human instructor teaches a robotic agent the names of the objects present in a visually shared environment. Any system for grounding vocabulary has to incorporate the properties of gradual evolution and lifelong learning. The learning model of the robot is adopted from an ongoing work on developing systems that conform to these properties. Significant modifications have been introduced to the adopted model, especially to handle words with multiple meanings. A novel classification strategy has been developed for improving the performance of each classifier for each learned category. A set of six new nearest-neighbor based classifiers have also been integrated into the agent architecture. A series of experiments were conducted to test the performance of the new model on vocabulary acquisition. The robot was shown to be robust at acquiring vocabulary and has the potential to learn a far greater number of words (with either single or multiple meanings).