To read the book "Automated Reasoning: Thirty-Three Basic Research problems (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1987, 300 pp., $11.00) by Larry Was it is not necessary to be an expert in mathematics or logic or computer science. However, even if you are such an expert, you will read it with interest, and likely, with enjoyment.

Advances in computer hardware and software and engineering methodologies in the 1960s and 1970s led to an increased use of computers by engineers. AI techniques, in particular the knowledge-based system (KBS) technology, offer a methodology to solve these ill-structured design problems. In this article, we describe several research projects that utilize KBS techniques for design automation. These projects are (1) the Criteria Yielding, Consistent Labeling with Optimization and Precedents-Based System (CYCLOPS), which generates innovative designs by using a three-stage process: normal search, exploration, and adaptation; (2) the Concept Generator (CONGEN), which is a domain independent framework for conceptual or preliminary design; (3) Constraint Manager (CONMAN), which is a constraint-management system that performs the evaluation and consistency maintenance of constraints arising in design; (4) the distributed and integrated environment for computer-aided engineering (DICE), which facilitates coordination, communication, and control during the entire design and construction/manu-facturing phases; and (5) DESIGN-KIT, which can be envisioned as a new generation of computer-aided engineering environment for process-engineering applications.

Nevertheless, significant aspects of behavior and user expectation are peculiar to expert systems and their users. These considerations are discussed here with examples from an actual system. Guidelines for the behavior of expert systems and the responsibility of designers to their users are proposed.

Second, These sections describe how Phoenix agents there are motivating issues, of plan in real time but do not provide the which the foremost is to understand minute detail that is offered elsewhere (Cohen how complex environments et al. forthcoming). The next section illustrates constrain on the design of Phoenix agents controlling a forest fire. We seek general The last section describes the current status of rules that justify and explain the project and our immediate goals. The terms in these rules describe The Phoenix task is to control simulated characteristics of environments, forest fires by deploying simulated bulldozers, tasks and behaviors, and the crews, airplanes, and other objects. We discuss architectures of agents. Phoenix Environment, Layers 1 and 2 but Phoenix is a commentary on the Phoenix Simulator. In the following pages, we describe Phoenix from the perspective of our technical aims and motives. The second section describes the Phoenix task--controlling simulated forest fires-- and explains why we use a simulated environment instead of a real, physical one. The two lowest layers of Phoenix, described in The Phoenix Environment, Layers 1 and 2, implement the simulated environment and maintain the illusion that the forest fire and agents are acting simultaneously. Above these layers are two others: a Figure 2. Fire at 12:30 Bulldozers are Close to organization of multiple Meeting at the Fire Front. The left pane displays the real world; the right pane displays fireboss sees it. Firefighting objects are also and other agents are semiautonomous.

These debates end by a culture for accommodating of the medical AI community, I feel I up merely as arguments in which its limited knowledge representations. Those of us in intelligence is). Depending such an extent that the limits of the medical AI have been highly sensitized upon what properties of human and computer system would no longer be to common misunderstandings artificial intelligence are stressed we a representational problem? We also encounter a general lack of of the relationship. Will we need to ascribe pleasure and realistic expectations regarding the The problem is that the models of pain to our computer experts?

This article is a summary of the Workshop on Explanation held during the 1988 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence in St. Paul, Minnesota. The purpose of the workshop was to identify key research issues in the rapidly emerging area of expert system explanation.

Largely from this Traditionally, systems that automatically and realization--was widely experience, we came to understand generate natural language have deemed more convenient than accurate: the sorts of tasks that a text planner been conceived as consisting of two The components of a generator has to perform: determining which principal components: a text planner should be able to communicate at elements to say, coherently structuring and a realization grammar. Recent any level where their information is the input elements, building advances in the art, especially in the applicable.

The A.T. Nonmonotonic Workshop multisubmission paper policy by Anderson Memorial Scholarship Program The third international workshop on IJCAI was deferred until the of the American Indian Science August meeting.

The user interface to an expert system shares many design objectives and methods with the interface to a computer system of any sort. Nevertheless, significant aspects of behavior and user expectation are peculiar to expert systems and their users. These considerations are discussed here with examples from an actual system. Guidelines for the behavior of expert systems and the responsibility of designers to their users are proposed. Simplicity is highly recommended. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praete necessitatem.