Humans are working artificial intelligence programs (AI) into business, government and daily life. Like with any new tool or technology, we start to see the initial technology flaws the more we are exposed to it. So we are now in the midst of a moment where AI is under the microscope, with policy makers picking apart AI contributions and demanding that AI meet high standards of performance and social consequence. This is a healthy process. Society should always examine impactful tools and push for the tools to work better.

Actively sampled data can have very different characteristics than passively sampled data. Therefore, it's promising to investigate using different inference procedures during AL than are used during passive learning (PL). This general idea is explored in detail for the focused case of AL with cost-weighted SVMs for imbalanced data, a situation that arises for many HLT tasks. The key idea behind the proposed InitPA method for addressing imbalance is to base cost models during AL on an estimate of overall corpus imbalance computed via a small unbiased sample rather than the imbalance in the labeled training data, which is the leading method used during PL.

Possessing a sufficient level of situation awareness is essential for effective decision making in dynamic environments. In video games, this includes being aware to some extent of the intentions of the opponents. Such high-level awareness hinges upon inferences over the lower-level situation awareness provided by the game state. Traditional plan recognizers are completely passive processes that leave all the initiative to the observed agent. In a situation where the opponent's intentions are unclear, the observer is forced to wait until further observations of the opponent's actions are made to disambiguate the pending goal hypotheses. With the plan recognizer we propose, in contrast, the observer would take the initiative and provoke the opponent, with the expectation that his reaction will give cues as to what his true intentions actually are.

To choose their actions, reasoning programs must be able to make assumptions and subsequently revise their beliefs when discoveries contradict these assumptions. The Truth Maintenance System (TMS) is a problem solver subsystem for performing these functions by recording and maintaining the reasons for program beliefs. Such recorded reasons are useful in constructing explanations of program actions and in guiding the course of action of a problem solver. This paper describes (1) the representations and structure of the TMS, (2) the mechanisms used to revise the current set of beliefs, (3) how dependency-directed backtracking changes the current set of assumptions, (4) techniques for summarizing explanations of beliefs, (5) how to organize problem solvers into "dialectically arguing" modules, (6) how to revise models of the belief systems of others, and (7) methods for embedding control structures in patterns of assumptions. We stress the need of problem solvers to choose between alternative systems of beliefs, and outline a mechanism by which a problem solver can employ rules guiding choices of what to believe, what to want, and what to do.Artificial Intelligence 12(3):231-272