9,293 research outputs found
A new model for solution of complex distributed constrained problems
In this paper we describe an original computational model for solving
different types of Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problems (DCSP). The
proposed model is called Controller-Agents for Constraints Solving (CACS). This
model is intended to be used which is an emerged field from the integration
between two paradigms of different nature: Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) and the
Constraint Satisfaction Problem paradigm (CSP) where all constraints are
treated in central manner as a black-box. This model allows grouping
constraints to form a subset that will be treated together as a local problem
inside the controller. Using this model allows also handling non-binary
constraints easily and directly so that no translating of constraints into
binary ones is needed. This paper presents the implementation outlines of a
prototype of DCSP solver, its usage methodology and overview of the CACS
application for timetabling problems
Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments
Over the last decade, researchers have developed sophisticated online learning environments to support students engaging in argumentation. This review first considers the range of functionalities incorporated within these online environments. The review then presents five categories of analytic frameworks focusing on (1) formal argumentation structure, (2) normative quality, (3) nature and function of contributions within the dialog, (4) epistemic nature of reasoning, and (5) patterns and trajectories of participant interaction. Example analytic frameworks from each category are presented in detail rich enough to illustrate their nature and structure. This rich detail is intended to facilitate researchersâ identification of possible frameworks to draw upon in developing or adopting analytic methods for their own work. Each framework is applied to a shared segment of student dialog to facilitate this illustration and comparison process. Synthetic discussions of each category consider the frameworks in light of the underlying theoretical perspectives on argumentation, pedagogical goals, and online environmental structures. Ultimately the review underscores the diversity of perspectives represented in this research, the importance of clearly specifying theoretical and environmental commitments throughout the process of developing or adopting an analytic framework, and the role of analytic frameworks in the future development of online learning environments for argumentation
EXODUS: Integrating intelligent systems for launch operations support
Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is developing knowledge-based systems to automate critical operations functions for the space shuttle fleet. Intelligent systems will monitor vehicle and ground support subsystems for anomalies, assist in isolating and managing faults, and plan and schedule shuttle operations activities. These applications are being developed independently of one another, using different representation schemes, reasoning and control models, and hardware platforms. KSC has recently initiated the EXODUS project to integrate these stand alone applications into a unified, coordinated intelligent operations support system. EXODUS will be constructed using SOCIAL, a tool for developing distributed intelligent systems. EXODUS, SOCIAL, and initial prototyping efforts using SOCIAL to integrate and coordinate selected EXODUS applications are described
Advanced Knowledge Technologies at the Midterm: Tools and Methods for the Semantic Web
The University of Edinburgh and research sponsors are authorised to reproduce and distribute reprints and on-line copies for their purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation hereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are the authorâs and shouldnât be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of other parties.In a celebrated essay on the new electronic media, Marshall McLuhan wrote in 1962:Our private senses are not closed systems but are endlessly translated into each other in that experience which we call consciousness. Our extended senses, tools, technologies, through the ages, have been closed systems incapable of interplay or collective awareness. Now, in the electric age, the very
instantaneous nature of co-existence among our technological instruments has created a crisis quite new in human history. Our extended faculties and senses now constitute a single field of experience which demands that they become collectively conscious. Our technologies, like our private senses, now demand an interplay and ratio that makes rational co-existence possible. As long as our technologies were as slow as the wheel or the alphabet or money, the fact that
they were separate, closed systems was socially and psychically supportable. This is not true now when sight and sound and movement are simultaneous and global in extent. (McLuhan 1962, p.5, emphasis in original)Over forty years later, the seamless interplay that McLuhan demanded between our
technologies is still barely visible. McLuhanâs predictions of the spread, and increased importance, of electronic media have of course been borne out, and the worlds of business, science and knowledge storage and transfer have been revolutionised. Yet
the integration of electronic systems as open systems remains in its infancy.Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT) aims to address this problem, to create a view of knowledge and its management across its lifecycle, to research and create the
services and technologies that such unification will require. Half way through its sixyear span, the results are beginning to come through, and this paper will explore some of the services, technologies and methodologies that have been developed. We hope to give a sense in this paper of the potential for the next three years, to discuss the insights and lessons learnt in the first phase of the project, to articulate the challenges and issues that remain.The WWW provided the original context that made the AKT approach to knowledge
management (KM) possible. AKT was initially proposed in 1999, it brought together an interdisciplinary consortium with the technological breadth and complementarity to create the conditions for a unified approach to knowledge across its lifecycle. The
combination of this expertise, and the time and space afforded the consortium by the
IRC structure, suggested the opportunity for a concerted effort to develop an approach
to advanced knowledge technologies, based on the WWW as a basic infrastructure.The technological context of AKT altered for the better in the short period between the development of the proposal and the beginning of the project itself with the development of the semantic web (SW), which foresaw much more intelligent manipulation and querying of knowledge. The opportunities that the SW provided for e.g., more intelligent retrieval, put AKT in the centre of information technology innovation and knowledge management services; the AKT skill set would clearly be central for the exploitation of those opportunities.The SW, as an extension of the WWW, provides an interesting set of constraints to
the knowledge management services AKT tries to provide. As a medium for the
semantically-informed coordination of information, it has suggested a number of ways in which the objectives of AKT can be achieved, most obviously through the
provision of knowledge management services delivered over the web as opposed to the creation and provision of technologies to manage knowledge.AKT is working on the assumption that many web services will be developed and provided for users. The KM problem in the near future will be one of deciding which services are needed and of coordinating them. Many of these services will be largely or entirely legacies of the WWW, and so the capabilities of the services will vary. As well as providing useful KM services in their own right, AKT will be aiming to exploit this opportunity, by reasoning over services, brokering between them, and providing essential meta-services for SW knowledge service management.Ontologies will be a crucial tool for the SW. The AKT consortium brings a lot of expertise on ontologies together, and ontologies were always going to be a key part of the strategy. All kinds of knowledge sharing and transfer activities will be mediated by ontologies, and ontology management will be an important enabling task. Different
applications will need to cope with inconsistent ontologies, or with the problems that will follow the automatic creation of ontologies (e.g. merging of pre-existing
ontologies to create a third). Ontology mapping, and the elimination of conflicts of
reference, will be important tasks. All of these issues are discussed along with our
proposed technologies.Similarly, specifications of tasks will be used for the deployment of knowledge services over the SW, but in general it cannot be expected that in the medium term there will be standards for task (or service) specifications. The brokering metaservices
that are envisaged will have to deal with this heterogeneity.The emerging picture of the SW is one of great opportunity but it will not be a wellordered, certain or consistent environment. It will comprise many repositories of legacy data, outdated and inconsistent stores, and requirements for common understandings across divergent formalisms. There is clearly a role for standards to play to bring much of this context together; AKT is playing a significant role in these efforts. But standards take time to emerge, they take political power to enforce, and they have been known to stifle innovation (in the short term). AKT is keen to understand the balance between principled inference and statistical processing of web content. Logical inference on the Web is tough. Complex queries using traditional AI inference methods bring most distributed computer systems to their knees. Do we set up semantically well-behaved areas of the Web? Is any part of the Web in which
semantic hygiene prevails interesting enough to reason in? These and many other
questions need to be addressed if we are to provide effective knowledge technologies
for our content on the web
Parallel processing and expert systems
Whether it be monitoring the thermal subsystem of Space Station Freedom, or controlling the navigation of the autonomous rover on Mars, NASA missions in the 1990s cannot enjoy an increased level of autonomy without the efficient implementation of expert systems. Merely increasing the computational speed of uniprocessors may not be able to guarantee that real-time demands are met for larger systems. Speedup via parallel processing must be pursued alongside the optimization of sequential implementations. Prototypes of parallel expert systems have been built at universities and industrial laboratories in the U.S. and Japan. The state-of-the-art research in progress related to parallel execution of expert systems is surveyed. The survey discusses multiprocessors for expert systems, parallel languages for symbolic computations, and mapping expert systems to multiprocessors. Results to date indicate that the parallelism achieved for these systems is small. The main reasons are (1) the body of knowledge applicable in any given situation and the amount of computation executed by each rule firing are small, (2) dividing the problem solving process into relatively independent partitions is difficult, and (3) implementation decisions that enable expert systems to be incrementally refined hamper compile-time optimization. In order to obtain greater speedups, data parallelism and application parallelism must be exploited
Taming Numbers and Durations in the Model Checking Integrated Planning System
The Model Checking Integrated Planning System (MIPS) is a temporal least
commitment heuristic search planner based on a flexible object-oriented
workbench architecture. Its design clearly separates explicit and symbolic
directed exploration algorithms from the set of on-line and off-line computed
estimates and associated data structures. MIPS has shown distinguished
performance in the last two international planning competitions. In the last
event the description language was extended from pure propositional planning to
include numerical state variables, action durations, and plan quality objective
functions. Plans were no longer sequences of actions but time-stamped
schedules. As a participant of the fully automated track of the competition,
MIPS has proven to be a general system; in each track and every benchmark
domain it efficiently computed plans of remarkable quality. This article
introduces and analyzes the most important algorithmic novelties that were
necessary to tackle the new layers of expressiveness in the benchmark problems
and to achieve a high level of performance. The extensions include critical
path analysis of sequentially generated plans to generate corresponding optimal
parallel plans. The linear time algorithm to compute the parallel plan bypasses
known NP hardness results for partial ordering by scheduling plans with respect
to the set of actions and the imposed precedence relations. The efficiency of
this algorithm also allows us to improve the exploration guidance: for each
encountered planning state the corresponding approximate sequential plan is
scheduled. One major strength of MIPS is its static analysis phase that grounds
and simplifies parameterized predicates, functions and operators, that infers
knowledge to minimize the state description length, and that detects domain
object symmetries. The latter aspect is analyzed in detail. MIPS has been
developed to serve as a complete and optimal state space planner, with
admissible estimates, exploration engines and branching cuts. In the
competition version, however, certain performance compromises had to be made,
including floating point arithmetic, weighted heuristic search exploration
according to an inadmissible estimate and parameterized optimization
Logic programming in the context of multiparadigm programming: the Oz experience
Oz is a multiparadigm language that supports logic programming as one of its
major paradigms. A multiparadigm language is designed to support different
programming paradigms (logic, functional, constraint, object-oriented,
sequential, concurrent, etc.) with equal ease. This article has two goals: to
give a tutorial of logic programming in Oz and to show how logic programming
fits naturally into the wider context of multiparadigm programming. Our
experience shows that there are two classes of problems, which we call
algorithmic and search problems, for which logic programming can help formulate
practical solutions. Algorithmic problems have known efficient algorithms.
Search problems do not have known efficient algorithms but can be solved with
search. The Oz support for logic programming targets these two problem classes
specifically, using the concepts needed for each. This is in contrast to the
Prolog approach, which targets both classes with one set of concepts, which
results in less than optimal support for each class. To explain the essential
difference between algorithmic and search programs, we define the Oz execution
model. This model subsumes both concurrent logic programming
(committed-choice-style) and search-based logic programming (Prolog-style).
Instead of Horn clause syntax, Oz has a simple, fully compositional,
higher-order syntax that accommodates the abilities of the language. We
conclude with lessons learned from this work, a brief history of Oz, and many
entry points into the Oz literature.Comment: 48 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic
Programming
- âŠ