The International Environments conference has been held four times now. The first meeting was held in 2005 at the University of Essex, the second in 2006 at the National Technical University of Athens, and the third in 2007 at the University of Ulm. The conference is unique in its field, providing a leading edge forum for the international community to present the latest academic research and commercial developments. The realization of intelligent environments requires the convergence of different prominent disciplines. As a result, the conference has relevance to individuals working in the fields of information and computer science, material engineering, artificial intelligence, architecture, health care, sociology, design, networking, and intelligent agents.

SPARK'08 was the first edition of a workshop series designed to provide a stable, longterm forum where researchers could discuss Workshop (SPARK) was established to help address this issue. Building on precursory events, SPARK'08 was the first workshop designed Scheduling (ICAPS-08) held in Sydney, Australia, in September 2008. Like its immediate predecessor (the ICAPS'07 Workshop on Moving Planning and Scheduling Systems), the 2008 SPARK workshop was collocated with the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), a premier forum for research in AI planning and scheduling, and the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP). A handful of outstanding application-oriented papers are presented each year at the ICAPS conference. Time and again, in invited talks and in open microphone discussion sessions such as ICAPS's Festivus (where conference participants air their grievances in an open and entertaining way), researchers have lamented the small number of applications papers accepted at conferences such as ICAPS, CP, and the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

AAAI was pleased to present the AAAI-08 Workshop Program, held Sunday and Monday, July 13–14, in Chicago, Illinois, USA. The program included the following 15 workshops: Advancements in POMDP Solvers; AI Education Workshop Colloquium; Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems, Enhanced Messaging; Human Implications of Human-Robot Interaction; Intelligent Techniques for Web Personalization and Recommender Systems; Metareasoning: Thinking about Thinking; Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling; Search in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics; Spatial and Temporal Reasoning; Trading Agent Design and Analysis; Transfer Learning for Complex Tasks; What Went Wrong and Why: Lessons from AI Research and Applications; and Wikipedia and Artificial Intelligence: An Evolving Synergy.

Developments in mechanical control and complex motion planning have enabled robots to become almost commonplace in situations requiring precise but menial, tedious, and repetitive tasks. Recent robotics research has targeted the mechanical and computational challenges inherent in performing a much broader range of tasks autonomously. These problems are less well-defined, requiring greater intelligence, commonsense reasoning, and oftentimes novel solutions. By most definitions, creativity (the generation of novel and useful ideas) is necessary for intelligence; thus research efforts focusing on robotics and creativity are also efforts toward artificial intelligence. As robots and computer physical systems become more capable, they are increasingly useful in the study of creativity itself.

Calendar of all the AAAI sponsored conferences, conferences presented by AAAI Affiliates, and conferences held in cooperation with AAAI to be held in 2009.

The theme of this article is the dynamics of evolution of agents. That theme is applied to the evolution of constraint satisfaction, of agents themselves, of our models of agents, of artificial intelligence and, finally, of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). The overall thesis is that constraint satisfaction is central to proactive and responsive intelligent behavior.

Security at major locations of economic or political importance is a key concern around the world, particularly given the threat of terrorism. Limited security resources prevent full security coverage at all times, which allows adversaries to observe and exploit patterns in selective patrolling or monitoring, e.g. they can plan an attack avoiding existing patrols. Hence, randomized patrolling or monitoring is important, but randomization must provide distinct weights to different actions based on their complex costs and benefits. To this end, this paper describes a promising transition of the latest in multi-agent algorithms into a deployed application. In particular, it describes a software assistant agent called ARMOR (Assistant for Randomized Monitoring over Routes) that casts this patrolling/monitoring problem as a Bayesian Stackelberg game, allowing the agent to appropriately weigh the different actions in randomization, as well as uncertainty over adversary types. ARMOR combines two key features: (i) It uses the fastest known solver for Bayesian Stackelberg games called DOBSS, where the dominant mixed strategies enable randomization; (ii) Its mixed-initiative based interface allows users to occasionally adjust or override the automated schedule based on their local constraints. ARMOR has been successfully deployed since August 2007 at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to randomize checkpoints on the roadways entering the airport and canine patrol routes within the airport terminals. This paper examines the information, design choices, challenges, and evaluation that went into designing ARMOR.

Demonstration materials can take the research and industry presentations, project demonstrations, (Path planning, animation / camera control, tactical / strategic form of a recorded demonstration session, an executable version interactive poster sessions, and product exhibits.

On a technical chaired by Sibley Verbeck (CEO of algorithmics hugely, for instance level, the work involved using a Electric Sheep Company); and the session we can now solve Boolean satisfaction logic-based AI system to control a humanoid on neural nets was chaired by problems with hundreds of virtual agent in the Second Randal Koene (a neuroscientist from thousands of variables. We can use automated Life virtual world, which interacted Boston University).

Often user interfaces of theorem proving systems focus on assisting particularly trained and skilled users, i.e., proof experts. As a result, the systems are difficult to use for non-expert users. This paper describes a paper and pencil HCI experiment, in which (non-expert) students were asked to make suggestions for a GUI for an interactive system for mathematical proofs. They had to explain the usage of the GUI by applying it to construct a proof sketch for a given theorem. The evaluation of the experiment provides insights for the interaction design for non-expert users and the needs and wants of this user group.