Cassimatis, Nick, Luke, Sean, Levy, Simon D., Gayler, Ross, Kanerva, Pentti, Eliasmith, Chris, Bickmore, Timothy, Schultz, Alan C., Davis, Randall, Landay, James, Miller, Rob, Saund, Eric, Stahovich, Tom, Littman, Michael, Singh, Satinder, Argamon, Shlomo, Dubnov, Shlomo
The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence presented its 2004 Fall Symposium Series Friday through Sunday, October 22-24 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia, adjacent to Washington, DC. The symposium series was preceded by a one-day AI funding seminar. The topics of the eight symposia in the 2004 Fall Symposia Series were: (1) Achieving Human-Level Intelligence through Integrated Systems and Research; (2) Artificial Multiagent Learning; (3) Compositional Connectionism in Cognitive Science; (4) Dialogue Systems for Health Communications; (5) The Intersection of Cognitive Science and Robotics: From Interfaces to Intelligence; (6) Making Pen-Based Interaction Intelligent and Natural; (7) Real- Life Reinforcement Learning; and (8) Style and Meaning in Language, Art, Music, and Design.
Karlgren, Jussi, Kanerva, Pentti, Gamback, Bjorn, Forbus, Kenneth D., Tumer, Kagan, Stone, Peter, Goebel, Kai, Sukhatme, Gaurav S., Balch, Tucker, Fischer, Bernd, Smith, Doug, Harabagiu, Sanda, Chaudri, Vinay, Barley, Mike, Guesgen, Hans, Stahovich, Thomas, Davis, Randall, Landay, James
The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, in cooperation with Stanford University's Department of Computer Science, presented the 2002 Spring Symposium Series, held Monday through Wednesday, 25 to 27 March 2002, at Stanford University. The nine symposia were entitled (1) Acquiring (and Using) Linguistic (and World) Knowledge for Information Access; (2) Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Entertainment; (3) Collaborative Learning Agents; (4) Information Refinement and Revision for Decision Making: Modeling for Diagnostics, Prognostics, and Prediction; (5) Intelligent Distributed and Embedded Systems; (6) Logic-Based Program Synthesis: State of the Art and Future Trends; (7) Mining Answers from Texts and Knowledge Bases; (8) Safe Learning Agents; and (9) Sketch Understanding.
It has, for example, been interpreted in a variety of ways even within our own field, ranging from the logical view (intelligence as part of mathematical logic) to the psychological view (intelligence as an empirical phenomenon of the natural world) to a variety of others. Our physical bodies are in many ways overdetermined, unnecessarily complex, and inefficiently designed, that is, the predictable product of the blind search that is evolution. Natural intelligence is unlikely to be limited by principles of parsimony and is likely to be overdetermined, unnecessarily complex, and inefficiently designed. One example is the view that thinking is in part visual, and hence it might prove useful to develop representations and reasoning mechanisms that reason with diagrams (not just about them) and that take seriously their visual nature.
Grosz, Barbara, Davis, Randall
This report stems from an April 1994 meeting, organized by AAAI at the suggestion of Steve Cross and Gio Wiederhold.1 The purpose of the meeting was to assist ARPA in defining an agenda for foundational AI research. Prior to the meeting, the fellows and officers of AAAI, as well as the report committee members, were asked to recommend areas in which major research thrusts could yield significant scientific gain -- with high potential impact on DOD applications -- over the next ten years. At the meeting, these suggestions and their relevance to current national needs and challenges in computing were discussed and debated. An initial draft of this report was circulated to the fellows and officers.
Although knowledge representation is one of the central and, in some ways, most familiar concepts in AI, the most fundamental question about it -- What is it? Numerous papers have lobbied for one or another variety of representation, other papers have argued for various properties a representation should have, and still others have focused on properties that are important to the notion of representation in general. In this article, we go back to basics to address the question directly. We believe that the answer can best be understood in terms of five important and distinctly different roles that a representation plays, each of which places different and, at times, conflicting demands on the properties a representation should have.
A panel session at the 1989 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Los Angeles dealt with the subject of knowledge-based systems; the session was entitled "Expert Systems: How Far Can They Go?" The panelists included Randall Davis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); Stuart Dreyfus (University of California at Berkeley); Brian Smith (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center); and Terry Winograd (Stanford University), chairman. Part 1 of this article, which appeared in the Spring 1989 issue, began with Winograd's original charge to the panel, followed by lightly edited transcripts of presentations from Winograd and Dreyfus. Part 2 begins with the presentations from Smith and Davis and concludes with the panel discussion.
A panel session at the 1989 International Joint Conference on artificial intelligence in Los Angeles dealt with the subject of knowledge-based systems; the session was entitled "Expert Systems: How Far Can They Go?" The panelists included Randall Davis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); Stuart Dreyfus (University of California at Berkeley); Brian Smith (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center); and Terry Winograd (Stanford University), chairman. Part 1 includes presentations from Winograd and Dreyfus. Part 2, which will appear in the Summer 1989 issue, includes presentations from Smith and Davis and concludes with the panel discussion.
Davis, Randall | Hamscher, Walter
That simple observation underlies some of the considerable interest generated in recent years on the topic of model-based reasoning, particularly its application to diagnosis and troubleshooting. This paper surveys the current state of the art, reviewing areas that are well understood and exploring areas that present challenging research topics. It views the fundamental paradigm as the interaction of prediction and observation, and explores it by examining three fundamental subproblems: Generating hypotheses by reasoning from a symptom to a collection of components whose misbehavior may plausibly have caused that symptom; testing each hypothesis to see whether it can account for all available observations of device behavior; then discriminating among the ones that survive testing. Their diversity lies primarily in the varying amounts of kinds of knowledge they bring to bear at each stage of the process; the underlying paradigm is fundamentally the same.
We describe a system that reasons from first principles, i.e., using knowledge of structure and behavior. We give an example of the system in operation, illustrating that this approach provides several advantages, including a significant degree of device independence, the ability to constrain the hypotheses it considers at the outset, yet deal with a progressively wider range of problems, and the ability to deal with situations that are novel in the sense that their outward manifestations may not have been encountered previously. As background we review our basic approach to describing structure and behavior, then explore some of the technologies used previously in troubleshooting. The system can focus its efforts initially, yet will methodically expand its focus to include a broad range of faults.
Work on expert systems has received extensive attention recently, prompting growing interest in a range of environments. Much has been made of the basic concept and of the rule-based system approach typically used to construct the programs. Perhaps this is a good time then to review what we know, asses the current prospects, and suggest directions appropriate for the next steps of basic research. I'd like to do that today, and propose to do it by taking you on a journey of sorts, a metaphorical trip through the State of the Art of Expert Systems.