AI Magazine 84:7

Artificial Intelligence, 21 (1-2), 221-44.

"We describe the concept of distributed problem solving and define it as the cooperative solution of problems by a decentralized and loosely coupled collection of problem solvers. This approach to problem solving offers the promise of increased performance and provides a useful medium for exploring and developing new problem-solving techniques. We present a framework called the contract net that specifies communication and control in a distributed problem solver. Task distribution is viewed as an interactive process, a discussion carried on between a node with a task to be executed and a group of nodes that may be able to execute the task. We describe the kinds of information that must be passed between nodes during the discussion in order to obtain effective problem-solving behavior. This discussion is the origin of the negotiation metaphor: Task distribution is viewed as a form of contract negotiation. We emphasize that protocols for distributed problem solving should help determine the content of the information transmitted, rather than simply provide a means of sending bits from one node to another. The use of the contract net framework is demonstrated in the solution of a simulated problem in area surveillance, of the sort encountered in ship or air traffic control. We discuss the mode of operation of a distributed sensing system, a network of nodes extending throughout a relatively large geographic area, whose primary aim is the formation of a dynamic map of traffic in the area. From the results of this preliminary study we abstract features of the framework applicable to problem solving in general, examining in particular transfer of control. Comparisons with PLANNER, CONNIVER, HEARSAY-II, AND PUP6 are used to demonstrate that negotiation—the two-way transfer of information—is a natural extension to the transfer of control mechanisms used in earlier problem-solving systems." Artificial Intelligence 20:63-109.

In response to a world in which cancer is a growing global health challenge, there is now a greater need for US Medical Physicists and other Radiation Oncology professionals across institutions to work together and be more globally engaged in the fight against cancer. There are currently many opportunities for Medical Physicists to contribute to alleviating this pressing need, especially in helping enhance access to Medical Physics Education/training and Research Excellence across international boundaries, particularly for low and middle-income countries (LMIC), which suffer from a drastic shortage of accessible knowledge and quality training programs in radiotherapy. Many Medical Physicists aremore » not aware of the range of opportunities that even with small effort could have a high impact. Faculty at the two CAMPEP-accredited Medical Physics Programs in New England: the University of Massachusetts Lowell and Harvard Medical School have developed a growing alliance to increase Access to Medical Physics Education/training and Research Excellence (AMPERE), and facilitate greater active involvement of U.S. Medical Physicists in helping the global fight against cancer and cancer disparities. In this symposium, AMPERE Alliance members and partners from Europe and Africa will present and discuss the growing global cancer challenge, the dearth of knowledge, research, and other barriers to providing life-saving radiotherapy in LMIC, mechanisms for meeting these challenges, the different opportunities for participation by Medical Physicists, including students and residents, and how participation can be facilitated to increase AMPERE for global health.

One of the challenges increasingly facing intelligence analysts, along with professionals in many other fields, is the vast amount of data which needs to be reviewed and converted into meaningful information, and ultimately into rational, wise decisions by policy makers. The advent of the world wide web (WWW) has magnified this challenge. A key hypothesis which has guided us is that threats come from ideas (or ideology), and ideas are almost always put into writing before the threats materialize. While in the past the'writing' might have taken the form of pamphlets or books, today's medium of choice is themore » WWW, precisely because it is a decentralized, flexible, and low-cost method of reaching a wide audience. However, a factor which complicates matters for the analyst is that material published on the WWW may be in any of a large number of languages. In'Identification of Threats Using Linguistics-Based Knowledge Extraction', we have sought to use Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) and other similar text analysis techniques to map documents from the WWW, in whatever language they were originally written, to a common language-independent vector-based representation.

We describe a program for verifying that a set of rules in an expert system comprehensively spans the knowledge of a specialized domain. The program has been devised and tested within the context of the ONCOCIN System, a rule-based consultant for clinical oncology. The stylized format of ONCOIN's rule has allowed the automatic detection of a number of common errors as the knowledge base has been developed. This capability suggests a general mechanism for correcting many problems with knowledge base completeness and consistency before they can cause performance errors.

Today, surrounded by so many automatic machines industrial robots, and the R2-D2's of Star wars movies, most people think AI is much more advanced than it is. But still, many "computer experts" don't believe that machines will ever "really think." I think those specialists are too used to explaining that there's nothing inside computers but little electric currents. And there are many other reasons why so many experts still maintain that machines can never be creative, intuitive, or emotional, and will never really think, believe, or understand anything.

Interactive intelligent systems often suffer from a basic conflict between their computationally intensive nature and the need for responsiveness to a user. This paper introduces the Interviewer/Reasoner model, which helps to reduce this conflict. This model partitions an intelligent system into two asynchronous components. The Interviewer's primary function is to gather data while providing an acceptable response time to the user. The Reasoner does most of the symbolic computation for the system. This paper describes the implementation of the model in both timesharing and personal workstation environments, and uses the ONCOCIN system as an example.

Why People Think Computers Can't MOST PEOPLE ARE CONVINCED computers cannot think. I think those specialists are too used t,o That is, really think. This leads them to believe that there can't "thinking." This essay explains why they are wrong . Can Computers Do Only What They're Told? concerned with huge numerical computations: that's why the things were called computers. Most people think that "creativity" Yet even then a fringe of people envisioned what's now If so, then no computer can create-since, clearly, they realized that computers could manipulate not only numbers anything machines can do can be explained. To see what's wrong with that, we'd better turn aside able to go beyond arithmetic, perhaps to imitate the informa-from those outstanding works our cuhure views as very best Con processes that happen inside minds.

We describe a program for verifying that a set of rules in an expert system comprehensively spans the knowledge of a specialized domain. The program has been devised and tested within the context of the ONCOCIN System, a rule-based consultant for clinical oncology. The stylized format of ONCOIN's rule has allowed the automatic detection of a number of common errors as the knowledge base has been developed. This capability suggests a general mechanism for correcting many problems with knowledge base completeness and consistency before they can cause performance errors.