CSIEC (Computer Simulation in Educational Communication), is not only an intelligent web-based human-computer dialogue system with natural language for English instruction, but also a learning assessment system for learners and teachers. Its multiple functions—including grammar-based gap filling exercises, scenario show, free chatting and chatting on a given topic—can satisfy the various requirements for students with different backgrounds and learning abilities. After a brief explanation of the conception of our dialogue system, as well as a survey of related works, we will illustrate the system structure, and describe its pedagogical functions with the underlying AI techniques in detail such as NLP and rule-based reasoning. We will summarize the free Internet usage within a six month period and its integration into English classes in universities and middle schools. The evaluation findings about the class integration show that the chatting function has been improved and frequently utilized by the users, and the application of the CSIEC system on English instruction can motivate the learners to practice English and enhance their learning process. Finally, we will conclude with potential improvements.

Computer Science has a bad reputation among non-CS majors. This paper describes three assignments from a gentle introduction to programming course for non-majors that uses robots and simple game programming as a hook to get students interested in the subject. In each of the assignments presented, what might be considered a trivial twist to an instructor was a key factor in making an otherwise standard project into something that is more engaging.

Using robots as part of any curriculum requires careful management of the significant complexity that physical embodiment introduces. Students need to be made aware of this complexity without being overwhelmed by it, and navigating students through this complexity is the biggest challenge faced by an instructor.  Achieving this requires a framework that allows complexity to be introduced in stages, as students' abilities improve. Such a framework should also be flexible enough to provide a range of application environments that can grow with student  sophistication, and be able to quickly change between applications.  It should be portable and maintainable, and require a minimum of overhead to manage in a classroom. Finally, the framework should provide repeatability and control for evaluating the students' work, as well as for performing research. In this paper, we discuss the advantages of a mixed reality approach to applying robotics to education in order to accomplish these challenges.  We introduce a framework for managing mixed reality in the classroom, and discuss our experiences with using this framework for teaching robotics and AI.

We present a tutorial introduction to the area of preference handling - one of the core issues in the design of any system that automates or supports decision making. The main goal of this tutorial is to provide a framework, or perspective, within which current work on preference handling -representation, reasoning, and elicitation - can be understood. Our intention is not to provide a technical description of the diverse methods used, but rather, to provide a general perspective on the problem and its varied solutions and to highlight central ideas and techniques.

Early work in AI focused on the notion of a goal--an explicit target that must be achieved--and this paradigm is still dominant in AI problem solving. But as application domains become more complex and realistic, it is apparent that the dichotomic notion of a goal, while adequate for certain puzzles, is too crude in general. The problem is that in many contemporary application domains, for example, information retrieval from large databases or the web, or planning in complex domains, the user has little knowledge about the set of possible solutions or feasible items, and what she or he typically seeks is the best that's out there. But since the user does not know what is the best achievable plan or the best available document or product, he or she typically cannot characterize it or its properties specifically. As a result, the user will end up either asking for an unachievable goal, getting no solution in response, or asking for too little, obtaining a solution that can be substantially improved. Of course, the user can gradually adjust the stated goals. This, however, is not a very appealing mode of interaction because the space of alternative solutions in such applications can be combinatorially huge, or even infinite. Moreover, such incremental goal refinement is simply infeasible when the goal must be supplied offline, as in the case of autonomous agents (whether on the web or on Mars).

Moving toward true robot autonomy may require new paradigms, hardware, and ways of thinking. The goal of the AAAI 2008 Workshop on Mobility and Manipulation was not only to demonstrate current research successes to the AAAI community but also to road-map future mobility and manipulation challenges that create synergies between artificial intelligence and robotics. The half-day workshop included both a session on the exhibits and a panel discussion. The panel consisted of five prominent researchers who led a discussion of future directions for mobility and manipulation research. Andrew Ng of Stanford University (along with students Ashutosh Saxena and Ellen Klingbeil) focuses on opening arbitrary doors through learning a few visual keypoints, such as the location and type of door handle.

The Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Capture was held October 28-31, 2007, in Whistler, British Columbia. The topics covered in the invited talks, technical papers, posters, and demonstrations included knowledge engineering and modeling methodologies, knowledge engineering and the semantic web, mixedinitiative planning and decision-support tools, acquisition of problem-solving knowledge, knowledge-based markup techniques, knowledge extraction systems, knowledge acquisition tools, and advice-taking systems. These events, which were from web-based game-playing systems. The title of his talk was "Human Ken Barker and John Gennari Derek Sleeman noted in his introductory Etzioni's invited talk and had primary responsibilities for comments, knowledge capture is gave some technical details of the systems the conference and workshop programs. In the The best technical paper Since the K-CAP series was initiated, last decade or so, knowledge capture award was presented to Kai Eckert, the K-CAP and European Knowledge has again expanded its horizons significantly Heiner Stuckenschmidt, and Magnus Acquisition Workshop (EKAW) meetings to embrace information-extraction Pfeffer for their paper "Interactive have been held in alternate years, techniques, and more recently Thesaurus Assessment for Automatic with the K-CAP meetings taking place the web and enhanced connectivity Document Annotation."

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.

We review constraint-based approaches to handle preferences. We start by defining the main notions of constraint programming, then give various concepts of soft constraints and show how they can be used to model quantitative preferences. We then consider how soft constraints can be adapted to handle other forms of preferences, such as bipolar, qualitative, and temporal preferences. Finally, we describe how AI techniques such as abstraction, explanation generation, machine learning, and preference elicitation, can be useful in modelling and solving soft constraints.