This is a wonderful opportunity, yet a position is very hard to match in any other. The first AAAI conference was held at Stanford University; it was very much a research conference, a scientific event that generated a lot of excitement. The conference was small and intimate, with few parallel sessions. There were excellent opportunities for us to talk to one another. AAAI-80 gave real substance to the organization, clearly getting AAAI off on the right foot, and it gave new identity and cohesiveness to the field. This year--2006--has also been a big year, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the original meeting at Dartmouth College, where the name "artificial intelligence" first came into common use. Numerous events around the world, including a celebratory symposium at Dartmouth and an AAAI Fellows Symposium associated with AAAI-05, have marked this important milestone in the history of the field. Progress since our first AAAI conference has The First AAAI Conference was Held at Stanford University. While each year's results may have seemed incremental, when we look back over the entire period we see some truly amazing plate the big picture and, perhaps more importantly things. In job at DARPA), to identify gaps in our national hindsight this may no longer look so exciting computing research agenda. It also occurred to (purists will say that it was not an "AI" system me that that perspective was a very special that beat Garry Kasparov but rather a highly asset to use in drafting this presidential engineered special-purpose machine largely address. Looking forward from back then, no want to raise a broad issue and consider matter how Deep Blue actually worked, playing some larger questions regarding the nature of chess well was clearly an AI problem--in fact, a the field itself and the role that AAAI as an classical one--and our success was historic.

What Do We Know about Knowledge? In this article, I will examine the first of these questions. AI has been slow to embrace this principle. Programs demonstrating research ideas in AI are often too large and not well enough documented to allow replication or sharing. What I would like to in diverse conditions. I wish to clarify the knowledge example, it was pretty clearly articulated in Biblical principle and try to increase our understanding times: "A man of knowledge increaseth of what programmers and program strength" (Proverbs 24: 5). Greek philosophers based their lives on acquiring The "knowledge is power" principle is most and transferring knowledge. In the course closely associated with Francis Bacon, from his of teaching, they sought to understand the 1597 tract on heresies: "Nam et ipsa scientia nature of knowledge and how we can establish potestas est." ("In and of itself, knowledge is knowledge of the natural world. B," along with quantification, "All A's are B's," Euclid's geometry firmly established the concept In the intervening several centuries before Plato, Socrates's pupil and Aristotle's mentor, was the first to pose the question in writing of the Middle Ages and the rise of modern science what we mean when we say that a person in the West, He was distinguishing empirical knowledge, church to make new knowledge fit with established lacking complete certainty, from the certain dogma.

Artificial intelligence (AI), on the twenty-fifth anniversary of its naming, is a "kid, finally grown up." In this letter to his field, Feigenbaum recounts AI's stumbles and successes, its growing pains and maturation, to a place of preeminence among the sciences; standing with molecular biology, particle physics, and cosmology as owners of the best questions of science.

It is now mature enough to collaborate of a cybernetic meadow productively with its sister disciplines, where mammals and computers realizing the dream of ubiquitous computational live together in mutually intelligence. Several of AI's subdisciplines have wellestablished of our field, at Dartmouth College in 1956, is a They are practitioners while most of our failures are along the lines of achieving successful results later than of Kuhn's "normal" science--filling in boxes we had predicted in our youthful exuberance. Many of the philosophers who lectured us on Other parts of our field seem to be in a what we would never be able to achieve have state of perpetual revolution. Perhaps most gone strangely silent. All this struggle and cybernetics and pattern recognition; however, debate demonstrates the health of the field.

The 1956 Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence was initiated by this August 31, 1955 proposal, authored by John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude Shannon. The original typescript consisted of 17 pages plus a title page. Copies of the typescript are housed in the archives at Dartmouth College and Stanford University. The first 5 papers state the proposal, and the remaining pages give qualifications and interests of the four who proposed the study. In the interest of brevity, this article reproduces only the proposal itself, along with the short autobiographical statements of the proposers.

What Do We Know About Knowledge? Cover: AI@50--We Are Golden, by James Gary, New York, New York. Please contact AAAI for such permission. Electronic submissions should be submitted using the web-based submissions form. Submissions information is available at aimagazine.org.

In this paper, we show that there is a close relation between consistency in a constraint network and set intersection. A proof schema is provided as a generic way to obtain consistency properties from properties on set intersection. This approach not only simplifies the understanding of and unifies many existing consistency results, but also directs the study of consistency to that of set intersection properties in many situations, as demonstrated by the results on the convexity and tightness of constraints in this paper. Specifically, we identify a new class of tree convex constraints where local consistency ensures global consistency. This generalizes row convex constraints. Various consistency results are also obtained on constraint networks where only some, in contrast to all in the existing work,constraints are tight.

We present a heuristic search algorithm for solving first-order Markov Decision Processes (FOMDPs). Our approach combines first-order state abstraction that avoids evaluating states individually, and heuristic search that avoids evaluating all states. Firstly, in contrast to existing systems, which start with propositionalizing the FOMDP and then perform state abstraction on its propositionalized version we apply state abstraction directly on the FOMDP avoiding propositionalization. This kind of abstraction is referred to as first-order state abstraction. Secondly, guided by an admissible heuristic, the search is restricted to those states that are reachable from the initial state. We demonstrate the usefulness of the above techniques for solving FOMDPs with a system, referred to as FluCaP (formerly, FCPlanner), that entered the probabilistic track of the 2004 International Planning Competition (IPC'2004) and demonstrated an advantage over other planners on the problems represented in first-order terms.

Constraint Programming (CP) has proved an effective paradigm to model and solve difficult combinatorial satisfaction and optimisation problems from disparate domains. Many such problems arising from the commercial world are permeated by data uncertainty. Existing CP approaches that accommodate uncertainty are less suited to uncertainty arising due to incomplete and erroneous data, because they do not build reliable models and solutions guaranteed to address the user's genuine problem as she perceives it. Other fields such as reliable computation offer combinations of models and associated methods to handle these types of uncertain data, but lack an expressive framework characterising the resolution methodology independently of the model. We present a unifying framework that extends the CP formalism in both model and solutions, to tackle ill-defined combinatorial problems with incomplete or erroneous data. The certainty closure framework brings together modelling and solving methodologies from different fields into the CP paradigm to provide reliable and efficient approches for uncertain constraint problems. We demonstrate the applicability of the framework on a case study in network diagnosis. We define resolution forms that give generic templates, and their associated operational semantics, to derive practical solution methods for reliable solutions.

Now, there are a number of different procedures that can be used for this process; the three main ones being the package deal procedure in which all the issues are bundled and discussed together, the simultaneous procedure in which the issues are discussed simultaneously but independently of each other, and the sequential procedure in which the issues are discussed one after another. Since each of them yields a different outcome, a key problem is to decide which one to use in which circumstances. Specifically, we consider this question for a model in which the agents have time constraints (in the form of both deadlines and discount factors) and information uncertainty (in that the agents do not know the opponent's utility function). For this model, we consider issues that are both independent and those that are interdependent and determine equilibria for each case for each procedure. In so doing, we show that the package deal is in fact the optimal procedure for each party. We then go on to show that, although the package deal may be computationally more complex than the other two procedures, it generates Pareto optimal outcomes (unlike the other two), it has similar earliest and latest possible times of agreement to the simultaneous procedure (which is better than the sequential procedure), and that it (like the other two procedures) generates a unique outcome only under certain conditions (which we define).