Using graph concepts to understand the organization of complex systems

Complex networks are universal, arising in fields as disparate as sociology, physics, and biology. In the past decade, extensive research into the properties and behaviors of complex systems has uncovered surprising commonalities among the topologies of different systems. Attempts to explain these similarities have led to the ongoing development and refinement of network models and graph-theoretical analysis techniques with which to characterize and understand complexity. In this tutorial, we demonstrate through illustrative examples, how network measures and models have contributed to the elucidation of the organization of complex systems.Comment: v(1) 38 pages, 7 figures, to appear in the International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos v(2) Line spacing changed; now 23 pages, 7 figures, to appear in the Special Issue "Complex Networks' Structure and Dynamics'' of the International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos (Volume 17, Issue 7, July 2007) edited by S. Boccaletti and V. Lator

Topological Complexity of Locally Finite omega-Languages

to appear in Archive for Mathematical LogicInternational audienceLocally finite omega-languages were introduced by Ressayre in [Formal Languages defined by the Underlying Structure of their Words, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 53 (4), December 1988, p. 1009-1026]. These languages are defined by local sentences and extend omega-languages accepted by Büchi automata or defined by monadic second order sentences. We investigate their topological complexity. All locally finite omega languages are analytic sets, the class LOC_omega of locally finite omega-languages meets all finite levels of the Borel hierarchy and there exist some locally finite omega-languages which are Borel sets of infinite rank or even analytic but non-Borel sets. This gives partial answers to questions of Simonnet [Automates et Théorie Descriptive, Ph. D. Thesis, Université Paris 7, March 1992] and of Duparc, Finkel, and Ressayre [Computer Science and the Fine Structure of Borel Sets, Theoretical Computer Science, Volume 257 (1-2), 2001, p.85-105]

On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9299-6Animals, including humans, are usually judged on what they could become, rather than what they are. Many physical and cognitive abilities in the ‘animal kingdom’ are only acquired (to a given degree) when the subject reaches a certain stage of development, which can be accelerated or spoilt depending on how the environment, training or education is. The term ‘potential ability’ usually refers to how quick and likely the process of attaining the ability is. In principle, things should not be different for the ‘machine kingdom’. While machines can be characterised by a set of cognitive abilities, and measuring them is already a big challenge, known as ‘universal psychometrics’, a more informative, and yet more challenging, goal would be to also determine the potential cognitive abilities of a machine. In this paper we investigate the notion of potential cognitive ability for machines, focussing especially on universality and intelligence. We consider several machine characterisations (non-interactive and interactive) and give definitions for each case, considering permanent and temporal potentials. From these definitions, we analyse the relation between some potential abilities, we bring out the dependency on the environment distribution and we suggest some ideas about how potential abilities can be measured. Finally, we also analyse the potential of environments at different levels and briefly discuss whether machines should be designed to be intelligent or potentially intelligent.We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which have helped to significantly improve 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. Finally, we thank three pioneers ahead of their time(s). We thank Ray Solomonoff (1926-2009) and Chris Wallace (1933-2004) for all that they taught us, directly and indirectly. And, in his centenary year, we thank Alan Turing (1912-1954), with whom it perhaps all began.Hernández-Orallo, J.; Dowe, DL. (2013). On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Minds and Machines. 23(2):179-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9299-6S179210232Amari, S., Fujita, N., Shinomoto, S. (1992). Four types of learning curves. Neural Computation 4(4), 605–618.Aristotle (Translation, Introduction, and Commentary by Ross, W.D.) (1924). Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Barmpalias, G. & Dowe, D. L. (2012). Universality probability of a prefix-free machine. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society A [Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences] (Phil Trans A), Theme Issue ‘The foundations of computation, physics and mentality: The Turing legacy’ compiled and edited by Barry Cooper and Samson Abramsky, 370, pp 3488–3511.Chaitin, G. J. (1966). On the length of programs for computing finite sequences. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13, 547–569.Chaitin, G. J. (1975). A theory of program size formally identical to information theory. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 22(3), 329–340.Dowe, D. L. (2008, September). Foreword re C. S. Wallace. Computer Journal, 51(5):523–560, Christopher Stewart WALLACE (1933–2004) memorial special issue.Dowe, D. L. (2011). MML, hybrid Bayesian network graphical models, statistical consistency, invariance and uniqueness. In: P. S. Bandyopadhyay, M. R. Forster (Eds), Handbook of the philosophy of science—Volume 7: Philosophy of statistics (pp. 901–982). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1997a). A computational extension to the turing test. Technical report #97/322, Dept Computer Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 9 pp, http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/publications/1997/tr-cs97-322-abs.html .Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1997b, September). A computational extension to the Turing Test. in Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Australasian Cognitive Science Society, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 9 pp.Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1998, February). A non-behavioural, computational extension to the Turing Test. In: International conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applications (ICCIMA’98), Gippsland, Australia, pp 101–106.Dowe, D. L., Hernández-Orallo, J. (2012). IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence, 40(2), 77–81.Gallistel, C. R., Fairhurst, S., & Balsam, P. (2004). The learning curve: Implications of a quantitative analysis. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(36), 13124–13131.Gardner, M. (1970). Mathematical games: The fantastic combinations of John Conway’s new solitaire game “life”. Scientific American, 223(4), 120–123.Goertzel, B. & Bugaj, S. V. (2009). AGI preschool: A framework for evaluating early-stage human-like AGIs. In Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial general intelligence (AGI-09), pp 31–36.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000a). Beyond the Turing Test. Journal of Logic, Language & Information, 9(4), 447–466.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000b). On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In A. Meystel (Ed), Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop (pp 1–8). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2010). On evaluating agent performance in a fixed period of time. In M. Hutter et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd international conference on artificial general intelligence (pp. 25–30). New York: Atlantis Press.Hernández-Orallo, J., & Dowe, D. L. (2010). Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1508–1539.Hernández-Orallo, J. & Dowe, D. L. (2011, April). Mammals, machines and mind games. Who’s the smartest?. The conversation, http://theconversation.edu.au/mammals-machines-and-mind-games-whos-the-smartest-566 .Hernández-Orallo J., Dowe D. L., España-Cubillo S., Hernández-Lloreda M. V., & Insa-Cabrera J. (2011). On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In: J. Schmidhuber, K. R. Thórisson, & M. Looks (Eds.), Artificial general intelligence 2011, volume 6830, LNAI series, pp. 82–91. New York: Springer.Hernández-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Lloreda, M. V. (2012a, March). Measuring cognitive abilities of machines, humans and non-human animals in a unified way: towards universal psychometrics. Technical report 2012/267, Faculty of Information Technology, Clayton School of I.T., Monash University, Australia.Hernández-Orallo, J., Insa, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hibbard, B. (2012b). Turing tests with Turing machines. In A. Voronkov (Ed.), The Alan Turing centenary conference, Turing-100, Manchester, volume 10 of EPiC Series, pp 140–156.Hernández-Orallo, J., & Minaya-Collado, N. (1998). A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of Kolmogorov complexity. In Proceedings of the international symposium of engineering of intelligent systems (EIS’98) (pp 146–163). Switzerland: ICSC Press.Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317(5843), 1360–1366.Herrmann, E., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Call, J., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2010). The structure of individual differences in the cognitive abilities of children and chimpanzees. Psychological Science, 21(1), 102–110.Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of educational psychology, 57(5), 253.Hutter, M. (2005). Universal artificial intelligence: Sequential decisions based on algorithmic probability. New York: Springer.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., España, S., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011a). Comparing humans and AI agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pp 122–132. Springer, New York.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011b). Evaluating a reinforcement learning algorithm with a general intelligence test. In CAEPIA—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 7023, pages 1–11. Springer, New York.Kearns, M. & Singh, S. (2002). Near-optimal reinforcement learning in polynomial time. Machine Learning, 49(2), 209–232.Kolmogorov, A. N. (1965). Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems of Information Transmission, 1, 4–7.Legg, S. (2008, June). Machine super intelligence. Department of Informatics, University of Lugano.Legg, S. & Hutter, M. (2007). Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines, 17(4), 391–444.Legg, S., & Veness, J. (2012). An approximation of the universal intelligence measure. In Proceedings of Solomonoff 85th memorial conference. New York: Springer.Levin, L. A. (1973). Universal sequential search problems. Problems of Information Transmission, 9(3), 265–266.Li, M., Vitányi, P. (2008). An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (3rd ed). New York: Springer.Little, V. L., & Bailey, K. G. (1972). Potential intelligence or intelligence test potential? A question of empirical validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(1), 168.Mahoney, M. V. (1999). Text compression as a test for artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI (pp. 486–502). New Jersey: Wiley.Mahrer, A. R. (1958). Potential intelligence: A learning theory approach to description and clinical implication. The Journal of General Psychology, 59(1), 59–71.Oppy, G., & Dowe, D. L. (2011). The Turing Test. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/ .Orseau, L. & Ring, M. (2011). Self-modification and mortality in artificial agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pages 1–10. Springer, New York.Ring, M. & Orseau, L. (2011). Delusion, survival, and intelligent agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pp. 11–20. Springer, New York.Schaeffer, J., Burch, N., Bjornsson, Y., Kishimoto, A., Muller, M., Lake, R., et al. (2007). Checkers is solved. Science, 317(5844), 1518.Solomonoff, R. J. (1962). Training sequences for mechanized induction. In M. Yovits, G. Jacobi, & G. Goldsteins (Eds.), Self-Organizing Systems, 7, 425–434.Solomonoff, R. J. (1964). A formal theory of inductive inference. Information and Control, 7(1–22), 224–254.Solomonoff, R. J. (1967). Inductive inference research: Status, Spring 1967. RTB 154, Rockford Research, Inc., 140 1/2 Mt. Auburn St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138, July 1967.Solomonoff, R. J. (1978). Complexity-based induction systems: comparisons and convergence theorems. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 24(4), 422–432.Solomonoff, R. J. (1984). Perfect training sequences and the costs of corruption—A progress report on induction inference research. Oxbridge research.Solomonoff, R. J. (1985). The time scale of artificial intelligence: Reflections on social effects. Human Systems Management, 5, 149–153.Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge: The MIT press.Thorp, T. R., & Mahrer, A. R. (1959). Predicting potential intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15(3), 286–288.Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.Veness, J., Ng, K. S., Hutter, M., & Silver, D. (2011). A Monte Carlo AIXI approximation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, JAIR, 40, 95–142.Wallace, C. S. (2005). Statistical and inductive inference by minimum message length. New York: Springer.Wallace, C. S., & Boulton, D. M. (1968). An information measure for classification. Computer Journal, 11, 185–194.Wallace, C. S., & Dowe, D. L. (1999a). Minimum message length and Kolmogorov complexity. Computer Journal 42(4), 270–283.Wallace, C. S., & Dowe, D. L. (1999b). Refinements of MDL and MML coding. Computer Journal, 42(4), 330–337.Woergoetter, F., & Porr, B. (2008). Reinforcement learning. Scholarpedia, 3(3), 1448.Zvonkin, A. K., & Levin, L. A. (1970). The complexity of finite objects and the development of the concepts of information and randomness by means of the theory of algorithms. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 25, 83–124

Challenges and other feedback: Integrating intercultural learning in the Digital Age

[EN] This mixed method case study explored globalization and complex relationships through a virtual exchange project between students from Germany and Colombia in upper intermediate level English classes. We believed by providing a space for online conversation, written collaboration and discussion, students would enhance their plurilingual and pluricultural competence as well as their communicative competences through the medium of English as an international language (EIL).  The aim was also to enable students to investigate cultural complexity and to develop cultural curiosity. Taking into account plurilingual and pluricultural competence (PPC) and the efficacy of virtual exchanges for language learning, we used a series of tasks for students to participate in a wide range of activities of varying complexity regarding German and Colombian culture for a six-week exchange.  Students self-assessed their written and spoken online interactions as well as their perceived skills in mediating texts and communication based on the recently added descriptors in the Companion Volume to the CEFR. They also rated their plurilingual and pluricultural competences on a PPC scale at both the beginning and end of the project. Results demonstrate that there is value in implementing virtual exchange projects in which students reflect on and increase their awareness of these concepts also suggesting that pairing students with international students rather than L1 speakers of the language has a potentially positive effect on students’ anxiety level and communicative competences. Bailey, A.; Gruber, A. (2020). Challenges and other feedback: Integrating intercultural learning in the Digital Age. The EuroCALL Review. 28(1):3-14. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2020.11982OJS314281Abrams, Z.I. (2002). Surfing to cross-cultural awareness: Using Internet-mediated projects to explore cultural stereotypes. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 141- 160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb03151.xAvgousti, M. I. (2018) Intercultural communicative competence and online exchanges: a systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 819853. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1455713Belz, J.A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 68-117. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25201Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languagesCouncil of Europe (2018), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volumewith-new-descriptors2018/1680787989Fuchs, C., Hauck, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2012). Promoting learner autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 82-102. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2012/fuchsetal.pdfGalante, A. (2018). Plurilingual or monolingual? A mixed methods study investigating plurilingual instruction in an EAP program at a Canadian university. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/91806Gläsman, S. (2004). Communication online. Bedfordbury: CILT.Guarda, M. (2013). Negotiating a transcultural place in an English as a lingua franca telecollaboration exchange. (Unpublished PhD thesis). Retrieved from http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/5337/1/guarda_marta_tesi.pdfHelm, F. (2015). The practices and challenges of telecollaboration in higher education in Europe. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 197-217. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2015/helm.pdfKe, I. C., & Suzuki, T. (2011). Teaching global English with NNS-NNS online communication. Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(2), 169-188. Retrieved from https://waseda.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/teaching-global-english-with-nns-nnsonline-communicationMüller-Hartmann, A., O'Dowd, R., and colleagues from the EVALUATE team (2017). A training manual on telecollaboration for teacher trainers. Retrieved from https://www.evaluateproject.eu/evlt-data/uploads/2017/09/TrainingManual_EVALUATE.pdfPellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (dir.). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 59-87. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524735.006Schenker, T. (2017). Synchronous telecollaboration for novice language learners: Effects on speaking skills and language learning interests. Alsic, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.4000/alsic.3068Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca, ELT Journal, 59, 339-41. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci064Tian, J. & Wang, Y. (2010). Taking language learning outside the classroom: Learners' perspectives of eTandem learning via Skype. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4 (3), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.513443UNICollaboration (n.d.). International Conference: Telecollaboration in University Foreign Language Education. Retrieved from http://unicollaboration.unileon.esWarschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26. Retrieved from http://education.uci.edu/uploads/7/2/7/6/72769947/comparing_face-toface_and_electronic_discussion.pdfYamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, vol. 52(4), 820-833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.00

The influence of quantization process on the performance of global entropic thresholding algorithms using electrical capacitance tomography data

In measuring component fraction in multiphase flows using tomographic techniques, it is desirable to use a high speed tomography system capable of generating 100 tomograms per second. The electrical capacitance tomography system in this regard is considered to be the best among the available tomographic techniques. However, due to its inherent limitations the system generates distorted reconstructed tomograms necessitating the use of extra signal processing techniques such as thresholding to minimize these distortions. Whilst thresholding technique has been effective in minimizing distortions, the additional computation associated with the process limits the speed of tomogram generation desired from the system. Further, the accuracy of the techniques is limited to higher ranges of the full component fraction range. However, since its performance can be influenced by the nature of the quantization process required a priori, optimal quantization parameters can be found and used to improve performance. In this article the influence of quantization resolution and its rate on the performance of global entropic thresholding algorithms have been investigated. Measurement of gas volume component fraction in a multiphase flow of gas/liquid mixture using electrical capacitance tomography system has been used for evaluation using simulated and online capacitance measurement data. Results show that an optimal quantizer resolution is flow regime dependent. Higher resolutions are optimal for annular flow and vice versa for stratified flow regimes. Also, higher resolution significantly minimizes the dependency of the thresholding algorithm on the object to be searched, thereby reducing complexity of designing a thresholder. Overall, the optimal quantization resolution is 256. Tanzania Journal of Science Vol. 31 (2) 2005: pp. 63-7

Lower Bounds on the Bounded Coefficient Complexity of Bilinear Maps

We prove lower bounds of order $n\log n$ for both the problem to multiply polynomials of degree $n$, and to divide polynomials with remainder, in the model of bounded coefficient arithmetic circuits over the complex numbers. These lower bounds are optimal up to order of magnitude. The proof uses a recent idea of R. Raz [Proc. 34th STOC 2002] proposed for matrix multiplication. It reduces the linear problem to multiply a random circulant matrix with a vector to the bilinear problem of cyclic convolution. We treat the arising linear problem by extending J. Morgenstern's bound [J. ACM 20, pp. 305-306, 1973] in a unitarily invariant way. This establishes a new lower bound on the bounded coefficient complexity of linear forms in terms of the singular values of the corresponding matrix. In addition, we extend these lower bounds for linear and bilinear maps to a model of circuits that allows a restricted number of unbounded scalar multiplications.Comment: 19 page