Induction extracts knowledge in the form of, say, rules or decision trees from existing data, and deduction applies induction results to interpret new data. It starts with existing database technology and performs both induction and deduction. The integration of database technology, induction (from machine learning), and deduction (from knowledge-based sys-tems) plays a key role in the construction of ILDB systems, as does the design of efficient induction and deduction algorithms. This article presents a system structure for ILDB systems and discusses practical issues for ILDB applications, such as instance selection and structured induction.

Induction and deduction are two opposite operations in data-mining applications. Induction extracts knowledge in the form of, say, rules or decision trees from existing data, and deduction applies induction results to interpret new data. An intelligent learning database (ILDB) system integrates machine-learning techniques with database and knowledge base technology. It starts with existing database technology and performs both induction and deduction. The integration of database technology, induction (from machine learning), and deduction (from knowledge-based sys-tems) plays a key role in the construction of ILDB systems, as does the design of efficient induction and deduction algorithms. This article presents a system structure for ILDB systems and discusses practical issues for ILDB applications, such as instance selection and structured induction.

Three systems that generate real-time natural language commentary on the RoboCup simulation league are presented, and their similarities, differences, and directions for the future discussed. Although they emphasize different aspects of the commentary problem, all three systems take simulator data as input and generate appropriate, expressive, spoken commentary in real time.

The Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration (III), organized in conjunction with the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, was held on 31 July 1999 in Stockholm, Sweden. Approximately 40 people participated, and nearly 20 papers were presented. This packed workshop schedule resulted from a large number of submissions that made it difficult to reserve discussion time without rejecting an unproportionately large number of papers. Participants included scientists and practitioners from industry and academia. Topics included query planning, applications of III, mediator architectures, and the use of ontologies for III.

Classifier systems are now viewed disappointing because of their problems such as the rule strength vs rule set performance problem and the credit assignment problem. In order to solve the problems, we have developed a hybrid classifier system: GLS (Generalization Learning System). In designing GLS, we view CSs as model free learning in POMDPs and take a hybrid approach to finding the best generalization, given the total number of rules. GLS uses the policy improvement procedure by Jaakkola et al. for an locally optimal stochastic policy when a set of rule conditions is given. GLS uses GA to search for the best set of rule conditions. 1 INTRODUCTION Classifier systems (CSs) (Holland 1986) have been among the most used in reinforcement learning.

Classifier systems are now viewed disappointing because of their problems such as the rule strength vs rule set performance problem and the credit assignment problem. In order to solve the problems, we have developed a hybrid classifier system: GLS (Generalization Learning System). In designing GLS, we view CSs as model free learning in POMDPs and take a hybrid approach to finding the best generalization, given the total number of rules. GLS uses the policy improvement procedure by Jaakkola et al. for an locally optimal stochastic policy when a set of rule conditions is given. GLS uses GA to search for the best set of rule conditions. 1 INTRODUCTION Classifier systems (CSs) (Holland 1986) have been among the most used in reinforcement learning.

Classifier systems are now viewed disappointing because of their problems suchas the rule strength vs rule set performance problem and the credit assignment problem. In order to solve the problems, we have developed ahybrid classifier system: GLS (Generalization Learning System). In designing GLS, we view CSs as model free learning in POMDPs and take a hybrid approach to finding the best generalization, given the total number of rules. GLS uses the policy improvement procedure by Jaakkola et al. for an locally optimal stochastic policy when a set of rule conditions is given. GLS uses GA to search for the best set of rule conditions. 1 INTRODUCTION Classifier systems (CSs) (Holland 1986) have been among the most used in reinforcement learning.

AI has embraced medical applications from its inception, and some of the earliest work in successful application of AI technology occurred in medical contexts. Medicine in the twenty-first century will be very different than medicine in the late twentieth century. Fortunately, the technical challenges to AI that emerge are similar, and the prospects for success are high.

The last few years have seen a surge in interest in the use of techniques from Bayesian decision theory to address problems in AI. Decision theory provides a normative framework for representing and reasoning about decision problems under uncertainty. Within the context of this framework, researchers in uncertainty in the AI community have been developing computational techniques for building rational agents and representations suited to engineering their knowledge bases. This special issue reviews recent research in Bayesian problem-solving techniques. The articles cover the topics of inference in Bayesian networks, decision-theoretic planning, and qualitative decision theory. Here, I provide a brief introduction to Bayesian networks and then cover applications of Bayesian problem-solving techniques, knowledge-based model construction and structured representations, and the learning of graphic probability models.

This paper offers an approach to extensible knowledge representation and reasoning for a family of formalisms known as Description Logics. The approach is based on the notion of adding new concept constructors, and includes a heuristic methodology for specifying the desired extensions, as well as a modularized software architecture that supports implementing extensions. The architecture detailed here falls in the normalize-compared paradigm, and supports both intentional reasoning (subsumption) involving concepts, and extensional reasoning involving individuals after incremental updates to the knowledge base. The resulting approach can be used to extend the reasoner with specialized notions that are motivated by specific problems or application areas, such as reasoning about dates, plans, etc. In addition, it provides an opportunity to implement constructors that are not currently yet sufficiently well understood theoretically, but are needed in practice. Also, for constructors that are provably hard to reason with (e.g., ones whose presence would lead to undecidability), it allows the implementation of incomplete reasoners where the incompleteness is tailored to be acceptable for the application at hand.