Artificial intelligence, or AI, is largely an experimental science—at least as much progress has been made by building and analyzing programs as by examining theoretical questions. MYCIN is one of several well-known programs that embody some intelligence and provide data on the extent to which intelligent behavior can be programmed. As with other AI programs, its development was slow and not always in a forward direction. But we feel we learned some useful lessons in the course of nearly a decade of work on MYCIN and related programs. In this book we share the results of many experiments performed in that time, and we try to paint a coherent picture of the work. The book is intended to be a critical analysis of several pieces of related research, performed by a large number of scientists. We believe that the whole field of AI will benefit from such attempts to take a detailed retrospective look at experiments, for in this way the scientific foundations of the field will gradually be defined. It is for all these reasons that we have prepared this analysis of the MYCIN experiments.

This book has been adapted in large part from the author's doctoral thesis [Shortliffe, l 974b]. Portions of the work appeared previously in Computers And Biomedical Research [Shortliffe, 1973, l 975b], Mathematical Biosciences [Shortliffe, 1975a], and the Proceedings Of The Thirteenth San Diego Biomedical Symposium [Shortliffe, l 974a]. To Stanford's Medical Scientist Training Program, which is supported by the National Institutes of Health Contents

JANICE S. AIKINS Dr. Aikins received her Ph.D. in computer science from Stanford University in 1980. She is currently a research computer scientist at IBM's Palo Alto Scientific Center. She specializes in designing systems with an emphasis on the explicit representation of control knowledge in expert systems. ROBERT L. BLUM Dr. Blum received his M.D. from the University of California Medical School at San Francisco in 1973. From 1973 to 1976 he did an internship and residency in the Department of Internal Medicine at the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Oakland, California, where he was chief resident in 1976.

Edward H. Shortliffe Chapter 6 Details of the Revised Therapy Algorithm

This is an integrative review that address the question, "What makes for a good explanation?" with reference to AI systems. Pertinent literatures are vast. Thus, this review is necessarily selective. That said, most of the key concepts and issues are expressed in this Report. The Report encapsulates the history of computer science efforts to create systems that explain and instruct (intelligent tutoring systems and expert systems). The Report expresses the explainability issues and challenges in modern AI, and presents capsule views of the leading psychological theories of explanation. Certain articles stand out by virtue of their particular relevance to XAI, and their methods, results, and key points are highlighted. It is recommended that AI/XAI researchers be encouraged to include in their research reports fuller details on their empirical or experimental methods, in the fashion of experimental psychology research reports: details on Participants, Instructions, Procedures, Tasks, Dependent Variables (operational definitions of the measures and metrics), Independent Variables (conditions), and Control Conditions.

The question addressed in this paper is: If we present to a user an AI system that explains how it works, how do we know whether the explanation works and the user has achieved a pragmatic understanding of the AI? In other words, how do we know that an explanainable AI system (XAI) is any good? Our focus is on the key concepts of measurement. We discuss specific methods for evaluating: (1) the goodness of explanations, (2) whether users are satisfied by explanations, (3) how well users understand the AI systems, (4) how curiosity motivates the search for explanations, (5) whether the user's trust and reliance on the AI are appropriate, and finally, (6) how the human-XAI work system performs. The recommendations we present derive from our integration of extensive research literatures and our own psychometric evaluations.

The explosive growth in fake news and its erosion to democracy, justice, and public trust has increased the demand for fake news analysis, detection and intervention. This survey comprehensively and systematically reviews fake news research. The survey identifies and specifies fundamental theories across various disciplines, e.g., psychology and social science, to facilitate and enhance the interdisciplinary research of fake news. Current fake news research is reviewed, summarized and evaluated. These studies focus on fake news from four perspective: (1) the false knowledge it carries, (2) its writing style, (3) its propagation patterns, and (4) the credibility of its creators and spreaders. We characterize each perspective with various analyzable and utilizable information provided by news and its spreaders, various strategies and frameworks that are adaptable, and techniques that are applicable. By reviewing the characteristics of fake news and open issues in fake news studies, we highlight some potential research tasks at the end of this survey.

Towards a Near Universal Time Series Data Mining Tool: Introducing the Matrix Profile by Chin-Chia Michael Yeh Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Program in Computer Science University of California, Riverside, September 2018 Dr. Eamonn Keogh, Chairperson The last decade has seen a flurry of research on all-pairs-similarity-search (or, self-join) for text, DNA, and a handful of other datatypes, and these systems have been applied to many diverse data mining problems. Surprisingly, however, little progress has been made on addressing this problem for time series subsequences. In this thesis, we have introduced a near universal time series data mining tool called matrix profile which solves the all-pairssimilarity-search problem and caches the output in an easy-to-access fashion. The proposed algorithm is not only parameter-free, exact and scalable, but also applicable for both single and multidimensional time series. By building time series data mining methods on top of matrix profile, many time series data mining tasks (e.g., motif discovery, discord discovery, shapelet discovery, semantic segmentation, and clustering) can be efficiently solved. Because the same matrix profile can be shared by a diverse set of time series data mining methods, matrix profile is versatile and computed-once-use-many-times data structure. We demonstrate the utility of matrix profile for many time series data mining problems, including motif discovery, discord discovery, weakly labeled time series classification, and vi representation learning on domains as diverse as seismology, entomology, music processing, bioinformatics, human activity monitoring, electrical power-demand monitoring, and medicine. We hope the matrix profile is not the end but the beginning of many more time series data mining projects.

Recently, many AI researchers and practitioners have embarked on research visions that involve doing AI for "Good". This is part of a general drive towards infusing AI research and practice with ethical thinking. One frequent theme in current ethical guidelines is the requirement that AI be good for all, or: contribute to the Common Good. But what is the Common Good, and is it enough to want to be good? Via four lead questions, I will illustrate challenges and pitfalls when determining, from an AI point of view, what the Common Good is and how it can be enhanced by AI. The questions are: What is the problem / What is a problem?, Who defines the problem?, What is the role of knowledge?, and What are important side effects and dynamics? The illustration will use an example from the domain of "AI for Social Good", more specifically "Data Science for Social Good". Even if the importance of these questions may be known at an abstract level, they do not get asked sufficiently in practice, as shown by an exploratory study of 99 contributions to recent conferences in the field. Turning these challenges and pitfalls into a positive recommendation, as a conclusion I will draw on another characteristic of computer-science thinking and practice to make these impediments visible and attenuate them: "attacks" as a method for improving design. This results in the proposal of ethics pen-testing as a method for helping AI designs to better contribute to the Common Good.

We discuss deep reinforcement learning in an overview style. We draw a big picture, filled with details. We discuss six core elements, six important mechanisms, and twelve applications, focusing on contemporary work, and in historical contexts. We start with background of artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, and reinforcement learning (RL), with resources. Next we discuss RL core elements, including value function, policy, reward, model, exploration vs. exploitation, and representation. Then we discuss important mechanisms for RL, including attention and memory, unsupervised learning, hierarchical RL, multi-agent RL, relational RL, and learning to learn. After that, we discuss RL applications, including games, robotics, natural language processing (NLP), computer vision, finance, business management, healthcare, education, energy, transportation, computer systems, and, science, engineering, and art. Finally we summarize briefly, discuss challenges and opportunities, and close with an epilogue.