1,208 research outputs found

    Models and metaphors: complexity theory and through-life management in the built environment

    Get PDF
    Complexity thinking may have both modelling and metaphorical applications in the through-life management of the built environment. These two distinct approaches are examined and compared. In the first instance, some of the sources of complexity in the design, construction and maintenance of the built environment are identified. The metaphorical use of complexity in management thinking and its application in the built environment are briefly examined. This is followed by an exploration of modelling techniques relevant to built environment concerns. Non-linear and complex mathematical techniques such as fuzzy logic, cellular automata and attractors, may be applicable to their analysis. Existing software tools are identified and examples of successful built environment applications of complexity modelling are given. Some issues that arise include the definition of phenomena in a mathematically usable way, the functionality of available software and the possibility of going beyond representational modelling. Further questions arising from the application of complexity thinking are discussed, including the possibilities for confusion that arise from the use of metaphor. The metaphor of a 'commentary machine' is suggested as a possible way forward and it is suggested that an appropriate linguistic analysis can in certain situations reduce perceived complexity

    Handling Real-World Context Awareness, Uncertainty and Vagueness in Real-Time Human Activity Tracking and Recognition with a Fuzzy Ontology-Based Hybrid Method

    Get PDF
    Human activity recognition is a key task in ambient intelligence applications to achieve proper ambient assisted living. There has been remarkable progress in this domain, but some challenges still remain to obtain robust methods. Our goal in this work is to provide a system that allows the modeling and recognition of a set of complex activities in real life scenarios involving interaction with the environment. The proposed framework is a hybrid model that comprises two main modules: a low level sub-activity recognizer, based on data-driven methods, and a high-level activity recognizer, implemented with a fuzzy ontology to include the semantic interpretation of actions performed by users. The fuzzy ontology is fed by the sub-activities recognized by the low level data-driven component and provides fuzzy ontological reasoning to recognize both the activities and their influence in the environment with semantics. An additional benefit of the approach is the ability to handle vagueness and uncertainty in the knowledge-based module, which substantially outperforms the treatment of incomplete and/or imprecise data with respect to classic crisp ontologies. We validate these advantages with the public CAD-120 dataset (Cornell Activity Dataset), achieving an accuracy of 90.1% and 91.07% for low-level and high-level activities, respectively. This entails an improvement over fully data-driven or ontology-based approaches.This work was funded by TUCS (Turku Centre for Computer Science), Finnish Cultural Foundation, Nokia Foundation, Google Anita Borg Scholarship, CEI BioTIC Project CEI2013-P-3, Contrato-Programa of Faculty of Education, Economy and Technology of Ceuta and Project TIN2012-30939 from National I+D Research Program (Spain). We also thank Fernando Bobillo for his support with FuzzyOWL and FuzzyDL tools

    Real “Smart Cities”: Insights from Civitas PROSPERITY

    Get PDF
    A city does not need to be smart, but to allow people be, behave, live and work smart(er). Furthermore, smart should not be necessarily equalled to high technology, but to the sound management, communication and use of available resources, be they tangible or intangible. Anyway our evolution cannot be limited to technology, even if the latter has become unavoidable. If not accompanied by a comprehensive perspective and coherent management, technology may rather block than facilitate resilience and sustainable urban development. Not always the most technically advanced and expensive solutions are the best (most effective) ones or frequently they cannot work alone, needing to be complemented by soft / lower-cost measures. Moreover,even if the actual “smart city” paradigm would be accepted, there do not seem to be enough resources (especially primary ones) to provide high-tech for everybody (WWF, 2018). In this case high-tech might be replaced by smart-tech staying for innovative solutions of best coping with given situations no matter the level of scientific, cultural, economic and behavioural advancement. These are some of the conclusions of a recent ongoing project funded through Horizon 2020, pleading for a global integrated perspective and providing the appropriate tools to sustainably shape and enhance it. Being built in response to the challenge “Real Smart Cities. Best practices and concepts for the future”, the present contribution informs on how Civitas PROSPERITY (applied research project) integrated these principles and produced innovation in the field of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP). The focus is on bright solutions that can be equally extended and applied in other fields of urban management beyond mobility, such as energy, land-use, cultural heritage etc

    An Inquiry into Model Validity When Addressing Complex Sustainability Challenges

    Get PDF
    Scientific modelling is a prime means to generate understanding and provide much-needed information to support public decision-making in the fluid area of sustainability. A growing, diverse sustainability modelling literature, however, does not readily lend itself to standard validation procedures, which are typically rooted in the positivist principles of empirical verification and predictive success. Yet, to be useful to decision-makers, models, including their outputs and the processes through which they are established must be, and must be seen to be “valid.” This study explores what model validity means in a problem space with increasingly interlinked and fast-moving challenges. We examine validation perspectives through ontological, epistemic, and methodological lenses, for a range of modelling approaches that can be considered as “complexity-compatible.” The worldview taken in complexity-compatible modelling departs from the more standard modelling assumptions of complete objectivity and full predictability. Drawing on different insights from complexity science, systems thinking, economics, and mathematics, we suggest a ten-dimensional framework for progressing on model validity when investigating sustainability concerns. As such, we develop a widened view of the meaning of model validity for sustainability. It includes (i) acknowledging that several facets of validation are critical for the successful modelling of the sustainability of complex systems; (ii) tackling the thorny issues of uncertainty, subjectivity, and unpredictability; (iii) exploring the realism of model assumptions and mechanisms; (iv) embracing the role of stakeholder engagement and scrutiny throughout the modelling process; and (v) considering model purpose when assessing model validity. We wish to widen the debate on the meaning of model validity in a constructive way. We conclude that consideration of all these elements is necessary to enable sustainability models to support, more effectively, decision-making for complex interdependent systems

    A canonical theory of dynamic decision-making

    Get PDF
    Decision-making behavior is studied in many very different fields, from medicine and eco- nomics to psychology and neuroscience, with major contributions from mathematics and statistics, computer science, AI, and other technical disciplines. However the conceptual- ization of what decision-making is and methods for studying it vary greatly and this has resulted in fragmentation of the field. A theory that can accommodate various perspectives may facilitate interdisciplinary working. We present such a theory in which decision-making is articulated as a set of canonical functions that are sufficiently general to accommodate diverse viewpoints, yet sufficiently precise that they can be instantiated in different ways for specific theoretical or practical purposes. The canons cover the whole decision cycle, from the framing of a decision based on the goals, beliefs, and background knowledge of the decision-maker to the formulation of decision options, establishing preferences over them, and making commitments. Commitments can lead to the initiation of new decisions and any step in the cycle can incorporate reasoning about previous decisions and the rationales for them, and lead to revising or abandoning existing commitments. The theory situates decision-making with respect to other high-level cognitive capabilities like problem solving, planning, and collaborative decision-making. The canonical approach is assessed in three domains: cognitive and neuropsychology, artificial intelligence, and decision engineering

    CBR and MBR techniques: review for an application in the emergencies domain

    Get PDF
    The purpose of this document is to provide an in-depth analysis of current reasoning engine practice and the integration strategies of Case Based Reasoning and Model Based Reasoning that will be used in the design and development of the RIMSAT system. RIMSAT (Remote Intelligent Management Support and Training) is a European Commission funded project designed to: a.. Provide an innovative, 'intelligent', knowledge based solution aimed at improving the quality of critical decisions b.. Enhance the competencies and responsiveness of individuals and organisations involved in highly complex, safety critical incidents - irrespective of their location. In other words, RIMSAT aims to design and implement a decision support system that using Case Base Reasoning as well as Model Base Reasoning technology is applied in the management of emergency situations. This document is part of a deliverable for RIMSAT project, and although it has been done in close contact with the requirements of the project, it provides an overview wide enough for providing a state of the art in integration strategies between CBR and MBR technologies.Postprint (published version

    Human-Intelligence and Machine-Intelligence Decision Governance Formal Ontology

    Get PDF
    Since the beginning of the human race, decision making and rational thinking played a pivotal role for mankind to either exist and succeed or fail and become extinct. Self-awareness, cognitive thinking, creativity, and emotional magnitude allowed us to advance civilization and to take further steps toward achieving previously unreachable goals. From the invention of wheels to rockets and telegraph to satellite, all technological ventures went through many upgrades and updates. Recently, increasing computer CPU power and memory capacity contributed to smarter and faster computing appliances that, in turn, have accelerated the integration into and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in organizational processes and everyday life. Artificial intelligence can now be found in a wide range of organizational systems including healthcare and medical diagnosis, automated stock trading, robotic production, telecommunications, space explorations, and homeland security. Self-driving cars and drones are just the latest extensions of AI. This thrust of AI into organizations and daily life rests on the AI community’s unstated assumption of its ability to completely replicate human learning and intelligence in AI. Unfortunately, even today the AI community is not close to completely coding and emulating human intelligence into machines. Despite the revolution of digital and technology in the applications level, there has been little to no research in addressing the question of decision making governance in human-intelligent and machine-intelligent (HI-MI) systems. There also exists no foundational, core reference, or domain ontologies for HI-MI decision governance systems. Further, in absence of an expert reference base or body of knowledge (BoK) integrated with an ontological framework, decision makers must rely on best practices or standards that differ from organization to organization and government to government, contributing to systems failure in complex mission critical situations. It is still debatable whether and when human or machine decision capacity should govern or when a joint human-intelligence and machine-intelligence (HI-MI) decision capacity is required in any given decision situation. To address this deficiency, this research establishes a formal, top level foundational ontology of HI-MI decision governance in parallel with a grounded theory based body of knowledge which forms the theoretical foundation of a systemic HI-MI decision governance framework
    corecore