190,552 research outputs found
On environment difficulty and discriminating power
The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9257-1This paper presents a way to estimate the difficulty and discriminating power of
any task instance. We focus on a very general setting for tasks: interactive (possibly multiagent)
environments where an agent acts upon observations and rewards. Instead of analysing
the complexity of the environment, the state space or the actions that are performed by the
agent, we analyse the performance of a population of agent policies against the task, leading
to a distribution that is examined in terms of policy complexity. This distribution is then
sliced by the algorithmic complexity of the policy and analysed through several diagrams
and indicators. The notion of environment response curve is also introduced, by inverting the
performance results into an ability scale. We apply all these concepts, diagrams and indicators
to two illustrative problems: a class of agent-populated elementary cellular automata, showing
how the difficulty and discriminating power may vary for several environments, and a multiagent
system, where agents can become predators or preys, and may need to coordinate.
Finally, we discuss how these tools can be applied to characterise (interactive) tasks and
(multi-agent) environments. These characterisations can then be used to get more insight
about agent performance and to facilitate the development of adaptive tests for the evaluation
of agent abilities.I thank the reviewers for their comments, especially those aiming at a clearer connection with the field of multi-agent systems and the suggestion of better approximations for the calculation of the response curves. The implementation of the elementary cellular automata used in the environments is based on the library 'CellularAutomaton' by John Hughes for R [58]. I am grateful to Fernando Soler-Toscano for letting me know about their work [65] on the complexity of 2D objects generated by elementary cellular automata. I would also like to thank David L. Dowe for his comments on a previous version of this paper. This work was supported by the MEC/MINECO projects CONSOLIDER-INGENIO CSD2007-00022 and TIN 2010-21062-C02-02, GVA project PROMETEO/2008/051, the COST - European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research IC0801 AT, and the REFRAME project, granted by the European Coordinated Research on Long-term Challenges in Information and Communication Sciences & Technologies ERA-Net (CHIST-ERA), and funded by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad in Spain (PCIN-2013-037).JosĆ© HernĆ”ndez-Orallo (2015). On environment difficulty and discriminating power. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 29(3):402-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9257-1S402454293Anderson, J., Baltes, J., & Cheng, C. T. (2011). Robotics competitions as benchmarks for ai research. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(01), 11ā17.Andre, D., & Russell, S. J. (2002). State abstraction for programmable reinforcement learning agents. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 119ā125). Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999.Antunes, L., Fortnow, L., van Melkebeek, D., & Vinodchandran, N. V. (2006). Computational depth: Concept and applications. Theoretical Computer Science, 354(3), 391ā404. Foundations of Computation Theory (FCT 2003), 14th Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory 2003.Arai, K., Kaminka, G. A., Frank, I., & Tanaka-Ishii, K. (2003). Performance competitions as research infrastructure: Large scale comparative studies of multi-agent teams. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 7(1ā2), 121ā144.Ashcraft, M. H., Donley, R. D., Halas, M. A., & Vakali, M. (1992). Chapter 8 working memory, automaticity, and problem difficulty. In Jamie I.D. Campbell (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills, volume 91 of advances in psychology (pp. 301ā329). North-Holland.Ay, N., MĆ¼ller, M., & Szkola, A. (2010). Effective complexity and its relation to logical depth. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 56(9), 4593ā4607.Barch, D. M., Braver, T. S., Nystrom, L. E., Forman, S. D., Noll, D. C., & Cohen, J. D. (1997). Dissociating working memory from task difficulty in human prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia, 35(10), 1373ā1380.Bordini, R. H., HĆ¼bner, J. F., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. London: Wiley. com.Boutilier, C., Reiter, R., Soutchanski, M., Thrun, S. et al. (2000). Decision-theoretic, high-level agent programming in the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 355ā362). Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999.Busoniu, L., Babuska, R., & De Schutter, B. (2008). A comprehensive survey of multiagent reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 38(2), 156ā172.Chaitin, G. J. (1977). Algorithmic information theory. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 21, 350ā359.Chedid, F. B. (2010). Sophistication and logical depth revisited. In 2010 IEEE/ACS International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA) (pp. 1ā4). IEEE.Cheeseman, P., Kanefsky, B. & Taylor, W. M. (1991). Where the really hard problems are. In Proceedings of IJCAI-1991 (pp. 331ā337).Dastani, M. (2008). 2APL: A practical agent programming language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 16(3), 214ā248.Delahaye, J. P. & Zenil, H. (2011). Numerical evaluation of algorithmic complexity for short strings: A glance into the innermost structure of randomness. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219(1), 63ā77Dowe, D. L. (2008). Foreword re C. S. Wallace. Computer Journal, 51(5), 523ā560. Christopher Stewart WALLACE (1933ā2004) memorial special issue.Dowe, D. L., & HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J. (2012). IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence, 40(2), 77ā81.Du, D. Z., & Ko, K. I. (2011). Theory of computational complexity (Vol. 58). London: Wiley-Interscience.Elo, A. E. (1978). The rating of chessplayers, past and present (Vol. 3). London: Batsford.Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.FatĆØs, N. & Chevrier, V. (2010). How important are updating schemes in multi-agent systems? an illustration on a multi-turmite model. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1-Volume 1 (pp. 533ā540). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Ferber, J. & MĆ¼ller, J. P. (1996). Influences and reaction: A model of situated multiagent systems. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-96) (pp. 72ā79).Ferrando, P. J. (2009). Difficulty, discrimination, and information indices in the linear factor analysis model for continuous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(1), 9ā24.Ferrando, P. J. (2012). Assessing the discriminating power of item and test scores in the linear factor-analysis model. PsicolĆ³gica, 33, 111ā139.Gent, I. P., & Walsh, T. (1994). Easy problems are sometimes hard. Artificial Intelligence, 70(1), 335ā345.Gershenson, C. & Fernandez, N. (2012). Complexity and information: Measuring emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales. Complexity, 18(2), 29ā44.Gruner, S. (2010). Mobile agent systems and cellular automata. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 20(2), 198ā233.Hardman, D. K., & Payne, S. J. (1995). Problem difficulty and response format in syllogistic reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(4), 945ā975.He, J., Reeves, C., Witt, C., & Yao, X. (2007). A note on problem difficulty measures in black-box optimization: Classification, realizations and predictability. Evolutionary Computation, 15(4), 435ā443.HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J. (2000). Beyond the turing test. Journal of Logic Language & Information, 9(4), 447ā466.HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J. (2000). On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In A. Meystel (Ed.), Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop (pp. 1ā8). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J. (2000). Thesis: Computational measures of information gain and reinforcement in inference processes. AI Communications, 13(1), 49ā50.HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J. (2010). A (hopefully) non-biased universal environment class for measuring intelligence of biological and artificial systems. In M. Hutter et al. (Ed.), 3rd International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (pp. 182ā183). Atlantis Press Extended report at http://users.dsic.upv.es/proy/anynt/unbiased.pdf .HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J., & Dowe, D. L. (2010). Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1508ā1539.HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., EspaƱa-Cubillo, S., HernĆ”ndez-Lloreda, M. V., & Insa-Cabrera, J. (2011). On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In J. Schmidhuber, K. R. ThĆ³risson, & M. Looks (Eds.), LNAI series on artificial general intelligence 2011 (Vol. 6830, pp. 82ā91). Berlin: Springer.HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., & HernĆ”ndez-Lloreda, M. V. (2014). Universal psychometrics: Measuring cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Cognitive Systems Research, 27, 50ā74.HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J., Insa, J., Dowe, D. L. & Hibbard, B. (2012). Turing tests with turing machines. In A. Voronkov (Ed.), The Alan Turing Centenary Conference, Turing-100, Manchester, 2012, volume 10 of EPiC Series (pp. 140ā156).HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J. & Minaya-Collado, N. (1998). A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of Kolmogorov complexity. In Proceedings of International Symposium of Engineering of Intelligent Systems (EISā98) (pp. 146ā163). ICSC Press.Hibbard, B. (2009). Bias and no free lunch in formal measures of intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 1(1), 54ā61.Hoos, H. H. (1999). Sat-encodings, search space structure, and local search performance. In 1999 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 16, pp. 296ā303).Insa-Cabrera, J., Benacloch-Ayuso, J. L., & HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J. (2012). On measuring social intelligence: Experiments on competition and cooperation. In J. Bach, B. Goertzel, & M. IklĆ© (Eds.), AGI, volume 7716 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 126ā135). Berlin: Springer.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., EspaƱa-Cubillo, S., HernĆ”ndez-Lloreda, M. V., & HernĆ”ndez-Orallo, J. (2011). Comparing humans and AI agents. In J. Schmidhuber, K. R. ThĆ³risson, & M. Looks (Eds.), LNAI series on artificial general intelligence 2011 (Vol. 6830, pp. 122ā132). Berlin: Springer.Knuth, D. E. (1973). Sorting and searching, volume 3 of the art of computer programming. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Kotovsky, K., & Simon, H. A. (1990). What makes some problems really hard: Explorations in the problem space of difficulty. Cognitive Psychology, 22(2), 143ā183.Legg, S. (2008). Machine super intelligence. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Lugano, June 2008.Legg, S., & Hutter, M. (2007). Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines, 17(4), 391ā444.Leonetti, M. & Iocchi, L. (2010). Improving the performance of complex agent plans through reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 723ā730). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Levin, L. A. (1973). Universal sequential search problems. Problems of Information Transmission, 9(3), 265ā266.Levin, L. A. (1986). Average case complete problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 15, 285.Li, M., & VitĆ”nyi, P. (2008). An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.Low, C. K., Chen, T. Y., & RĆ³nnquist, R. (1999). Automated test case generation for bdi agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 2(4), 311ā332.Madden, M. G., & Howley, T. (2004). Transfer of experience between reinforcement learning environments with progressive difficulty. Artificial Intelligence Review, 21(3), 375ā398.Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). Generalized linear item response theory. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 300.Michel, F. (2004). Formalisme, outils et Ć©lĆ©ments mĆ©thodologiques pour la modĆ©lisation et la simulation multi-agents. PhD thesis, UniversitĆ© des sciences et techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier.Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.Orponen, P., Ko, K. I., Schƶning, U., & Watanabe, O. (1994). Instance complexity. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 41(1), 96ā121.Simon, H. A., & Kotovsky, K. (1963). Human acquisition of concepts for sequential patterns. Psychological Review, 70(6), 534.Team, R., et al. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Whiteson, S., Tanner, B., & White, A. (2010). The reinforcement learning competitions. The AI Magazine, 31(2), 81ā94.Wiering, M., & van Otterlo, M. (Eds.). (2012). Reinforcement learning: State-of-the-art. Berlin: Springer.Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.Zatuchna, Z., & Bagnall, A. (2009). Learning mazes with aliasing states: An LCS algorithm with associative perception. Adaptive Behavior, 17(1), 28ā57.Zenil, H. (2010). Compression-based investigation of the dynamical properties of cellular automata and other systems. Complex Systems, 19(1), 1ā28.Zenil, H. (2011). Une approche expĆ©rimentale Ć la thĆ©orie algorithmique de la complexitĆ©. PhD thesis, Dissertation in fulfilment of the degree of Doctor in Computer Science, UniversitĆ© de Lille.Zenil, H., Soler-Toscano, F., Delahaye, J. P. & Gauvrit, N. (2012). Two-dimensional kolmogorov complexity and validation of the coding theorem method by compressibility. arXiv, preprint arXiv:1212.6745
Multi-layer Architecture For Storing Visual Data Based on WCF and Microsoft SQL Server Database
In this paper we present a novel architecture for storing visual data.
Effective storing, browsing and searching collections of images is one of the
most important challenges of computer science. The design of architecture for
storing such data requires a set of tools and frameworks such as SQL database
management systems and service-oriented frameworks. The proposed solution is
based on a multi-layer architecture, which allows to replace any component
without recompilation of other components. The approach contains five
components, i.e. Model, Base Engine, Concrete Engine, CBIR service and
Presentation. They were based on two well-known design patterns: Dependency
Injection and Inverse of Control. For experimental purposes we implemented the
SURF local interest point detector as a feature extractor and -means
clustering as indexer. The presented architecture is intended for content-based
retrieval systems simulation purposes as well as for real-world CBIR tasks.Comment: Accepted for the 14th International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence and Soft Computing, ICAISC, June 14-18, 2015, Zakopane, Polan
Natural language processing
Beginning with the basic issues of NLP, this chapter aims to chart the major research activities in this area since the last ARIST Chapter in 1996 (Haas, 1996), including: (i) natural language text processing systems - text summarization, information extraction, information retrieval, etc., including domain-specific applications; (ii) natural language interfaces; (iii) NLP in the context of www and digital libraries ; and (iv) evaluation of NLP systems
User-centered visual analysis using a hybrid reasoning architecture for intensive care units
One problem pertaining to Intensive Care Unit information systems is that, in some cases, a very dense display of data can result. To ensure the overview and readability of the increasing volumes of data, some special features are required (e.g., data prioritization, clustering, and selection mechanisms) with the application of analytical methods (e.g., temporal data abstraction, principal component analysis, and detection of events). This paper addresses the problem of improving the integration of the visual and analytical methods applied to medical monitoring systems. We present a knowledge- and machine learning-based approach to support the knowledge discovery process with appropriate analytical and visual methods. Its potential benefit to the development of user interfaces for intelligent monitors that can assist with the detection and explanation of new, potentially threatening medical events. The proposed hybrid reasoning architecture provides an interactive graphical user interface to adjust the parameters of the analytical methods based on the users' task at hand. The action sequences performed on the graphical user interface by the user are consolidated in a dynamic knowledge base with specific hybrid reasoning that integrates symbolic and connectionist approaches. These sequences of expert knowledge acquisition can be very efficient for making easier knowledge emergence during a similar experience and positively impact the monitoring of critical situations. The provided graphical user interface incorporating a user-centered visual analysis is exploited to facilitate the natural and effective representation of clinical information for patient care
Multi-level agent-based modeling - A literature survey
During last decade, multi-level agent-based modeling has received significant
and dramatically increasing interest. In this article we present a
comprehensive and structured review of literature on the subject. We present
the main theoretical contributions and application domains of this concept,
with an emphasis on social, flow, biological and biomedical models.Comment: v2. Ref 102 added. v3-4 Many refs and text added v5-6 bibliographic
statistics updated. v7 Change of the name of the paper to reflect what it
became, many refs and text added, bibliographic statistics update
Artificial intelligence and UK national security: Policy considerations
RUSI was commissioned by GCHQ to conduct an independent research study into the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for national security purposes. The aim of this project is to establish an independent evidence base to inform future policy development regarding national security uses of AI. The findings are based on in-depth consultation with stakeholders from across the UK national security community, law enforcement agencies, private sector companies, academic and legal experts, and civil society representatives. This was complemented by a targeted review of existing literature on the topic of AI and national security.
The research has found that AI offers numerous opportunities for the UK national security community to improve efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes. AI methods can rapidly derive insights from large, disparate datasets and identify connections that would otherwise go unnoticed by human operators. However, in the context of national security and the powers given to UK intelligence agencies, use of AI could give rise to additional privacy and human rights considerations which would need to be assessed within the existing legal and regulatory framework. For this reason, enhanced policy and guidance is needed to ensure the privacy and human rights implications of national security uses of AI are reviewed on an ongoing basis as new analysis methods are applied to data
Automated Reasoning and Presentation Support for Formalizing Mathematics in Mizar
This paper presents a combination of several automated reasoning and proof
presentation tools with the Mizar system for formalization of mathematics. The
combination forms an online service called MizAR, similar to the SystemOnTPTP
service for first-order automated reasoning. The main differences to
SystemOnTPTP are the use of the Mizar language that is oriented towards human
mathematicians (rather than the pure first-order logic used in SystemOnTPTP),
and setting the service in the context of the large Mizar Mathematical Library
of previous theorems,definitions, and proofs (rather than the isolated problems
that are solved in SystemOnTPTP). These differences poses new challenges and
new opportunities for automated reasoning and for proof presentation tools.
This paper describes the overall structure of MizAR, and presents the automated
reasoning systems and proof presentation tools that are combined to make MizAR
a useful mathematical service.Comment: To appear in 10th International Conference on. Artificial
Intelligence and Symbolic Computation AISC 201
- ā¦