When and How-Long: A Unified Approach for Time Perception

The representation of the environment assumes the encoding of four basic dimensions in the brain, that is the 3D space and time. The vital role of time for cognition is a topic that recently attracted gradually increasing research interest. Surprisingly, the scientific community investigating mind-time interactions has mainly focused on interval timing, paying less attention on the encoding and processing of distant moments. The present work highlights two basic capacities that are necessary for developing temporal cognition in artificial systems. In particular, the seamless integration of agents in the environment assumes they are able to consider when events have occurred and how long they have lasted. This information, although rather standard in humans, is largely missing from artificial cognitive systems. In the present work we consider how a time perception model that is based on neural networks and the Streatal Beat Frequency (SBF) theory is extended in a way that besides the duration of events, facilitates the encoding of the time of occurrence in memory. The extended model is capable to support skills assumed in temporal cognition and answer time-related questions about the unfolded events

Challenges in Complex Systems Science

FuturICT foundations are social science, complex systems science, and ICT. The main concerns and challenges in the science of complex systems in the context of FuturICT are laid out in this paper with special emphasis on the Complex Systems route to Social Sciences. This include complex systems having: many heterogeneous interacting parts; multiple scales; complicated transition laws; unexpected or unpredicted emergence; sensitive dependence on initial conditions; path-dependent dynamics; networked hierarchical connectivities; interaction of autonomous agents; self-organisation; non-equilibrium dynamics; combinatorial explosion; adaptivity to changing environments; co-evolving subsystems; ill-defined boundaries; and multilevel dynamics. In this context, science is seen as the process of abstracting the dynamics of systems from data. This presents many challenges including: data gathering by large-scale experiment, participatory sensing and social computation, managing huge distributed dynamic and heterogeneous databases; moving from data to dynamical models, going beyond correlations to cause-effect relationships, understanding the relationship between simple and comprehensive models with appropriate choices of variables, ensemble modeling and data assimilation, modeling systems of systems of systems with many levels between micro and macro; and formulating new approaches to prediction, forecasting, and risk, especially in systems that can reflect on and change their behaviour in response to predictions, and systems whose apparently predictable behaviour is disrupted by apparently unpredictable rare or extreme events. These challenges are part of the FuturICT agenda

A Review of Platforms for the Development of Agent Systems

Agent-based computing is an active field of research with the goal of building autonomous software of hardware entities. This task is often facilitated by the use of dedicated, specialized frameworks. For almost thirty years, many such agent platforms have been developed. Meanwhile, some of them have been abandoned, others continue their development and new platforms are released. This paper presents a up-to-date review of the existing agent platforms and also a historical perspective of this domain. It aims to serve as a reference point for people interested in developing agent systems. This work details the main characteristics of the included agent platforms, together with links to specific projects where they have been used. It distinguishes between the active platforms and those no longer under development or with unclear status. It also classifies the agent platforms as general purpose ones, free or commercial, and specialized ones, which can be used for particular types of applications.Comment: 40 pages, 2 figures, 9 tables, 83 reference

EXPLOITING KASPAROV'S LAW: ENHANCED INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION IN DOD SIMULATION-BASED TRAINING ENVIRONMENTS

Despite recent advances in the representation of logistics considerations in DOD staff training and wargaming simulations, logistics information systems (IS) remain underrepresented. Unlike many command and control (C2) systems, which can be integrated with simulations through common protocols (e.g., OTH-Gold), many logistics ISs require manpower-intensive human-in-the-loop (HitL) processes for simulation-IS (sim-IS) integration. Where automated sim-IS integration has been achieved, it often does not simulate important sociotechnical system (STS) dynamics, such as information latency and human error, presenting decision-makers with an unrealistic representation of logistics C2 capabilities in context. This research seeks to overcome the limitations of conventional sim-IS interoperability approaches by developing and validating a new approach for sim-IS information exchange through robotic process automation (RPA). RPA software supports the automation of IS information exchange through ISs’ existing graphical user interfaces. This “outside-in” approach to IS integration mitigates the need for engineering changes in ISs (or simulations) for automated information exchange. In addition to validating the potential for an RPA-based approach to sim-IS integration, this research presents recommendations for a Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process (DSEEP) overlay to guide the engineering and execution of sim-IS environments.Major, United States Marine CorpsApproved for public release. Distribution is unlimited

Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo