Neurons and symbols: a manifesto

We discuss the purpose of neural-symbolic integration including its principles, mechanisms and applications. We outline a cognitive computational model for neural-symbolic integration, position the model in the broader context of multi-agent systems, machine learning and automated reasoning, and list some of the challenges for the area of neural-symbolic computation to achieve the promise of effective integration of robust learning and expressive reasoning under uncertainty

Ways of Applying Artificial Intelligence in Software Engineering

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques have become more powerful and easier to use they are increasingly deployed as key components of modern software systems. While this enables new functionality and often allows better adaptation to user needs it also creates additional problems for software engineers and exposes companies to new risks. Some work has been done to better understand the interaction between Software Engineering and AI but we lack methods to classify ways of applying AI in software systems and to analyse and understand the risks this poses. Only by doing so can we devise tools and solutions to help mitigate them. This paper presents the AI in SE Application Levels (AI-SEAL) taxonomy that categorises applications according to their point of AI application, the type of AI technology used and the automation level allowed. We show the usefulness of this taxonomy by classifying 15 papers from previous editions of the RAISE workshop. Results show that the taxonomy allows classification of distinct AI applications and provides insights concerning the risks associated with them. We argue that this will be important for companies in deciding how to apply AI in their software applications and to create strategies for its use

On the adequacy of current empirical evaluations of formal models of categorization

Categorization is one of the fundamental building blocks of cognition, and the study of categorization is notable for the extent to which formal modeling has been a central and influential component of research. However, the field has seen a proliferation of noncomplementary models with little consensus on the relative adequacy of these accounts. Progress in assessing the relative adequacy of formal categorization models has, to date, been limited because (a) formal model comparisons are narrow in the number of models and phenomena considered and (b) models do not often clearly define their explanatory scope. Progress is further hampered by the practice of fitting models with arbitrarily variable parameters to each data set independently. Reviewing examples of good practice in the literature, we conclude that model comparisons are most fruitful when relative adequacy is assessed by comparing well-defined models on the basis of the number and proportion of irreversible, ordinal, penetrable successes (principles of minimal flexibility, breadth, good-enough precision, maximal simplicity, and psychological focus)