Computational tasks in robotics and factory automation

The design of Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems (MPCSs) — systems that negotiate with Customers and Suppliers to exchange products in return for money in order to generate profit, is discussed.\ud \ud The computational task of MPCS components are systematically specified as a starting point for the development of computational engines, as computer systems and programs, that execute the specified computation. Key issues are the overwhelming complexity and frequently changing application of MPCSs

Trusting Computations: a Mechanized Proof from Partial Differential Equations to Actual Program

Computer programs may go wrong due to exceptional behaviors, out-of-bound array accesses, or simply coding errors. Thus, they cannot be blindly trusted. Scientific computing programs make no exception in that respect, and even bring specific accuracy issues due to their massive use of floating-point computations. Yet, it is uncommon to guarantee their correctness. Indeed, we had to extend existing methods and tools for proving the correct behavior of programs to verify an existing numerical analysis program. This C program implements the second-order centered finite difference explicit scheme for solving the 1D wave equation. In fact, we have gone much further as we have mechanically verified the convergence of the numerical scheme in order to get a complete formal proof covering all aspects from partial differential equations to actual numerical results. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time such a comprehensive proof is achieved.Comment: N° RR-8197 (2012). arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1112.179

Probabilistic Numerics and Uncertainty in Computations

We deliver a call to arms for probabilistic numerical methods: algorithms for numerical tasks, including linear algebra, integration, optimization and solving differential equations, that return uncertainties in their calculations. Such uncertainties, arising from the loss of precision induced by numerical calculation with limited time or hardware, are important for much contemporary science and industry. Within applications such as climate science and astrophysics, the need to make decisions on the basis of computations with large and complex data has led to a renewed focus on the management of numerical uncertainty. We describe how several seminal classic numerical methods can be interpreted naturally as probabilistic inference. We then show that the probabilistic view suggests new algorithms that can flexibly be adapted to suit application specifics, while delivering improved empirical performance. We provide concrete illustrations of the benefits of probabilistic numeric algorithms on real scientific problems from astrometry and astronomical imaging, while highlighting open problems with these new algorithms. Finally, we describe how probabilistic numerical methods provide a coherent framework for identifying the uncertainty in calculations performed with a combination of numerical algorithms (e.g. both numerical optimisers and differential equation solvers), potentially allowing the diagnosis (and control) of error sources in computations.Comment: Author Generated Postprint. 17 pages, 4 Figures, 1 Tabl

Information Processing, Computation and Cognition

Computation and information processing are among the most fundamental notions in cognitive science. They are also among the most imprecisely discussed. Many cognitive scientists take it for granted that cognition involves computation, information processing, or both – although others disagree vehemently. Yet different cognitive scientists use ‘computation’ and ‘information processing’ to mean different things, sometimes without realizing that they do. In addition, computation and information processing are surrounded by several myths; first and foremost, that they are the same thing. In this paper, we address this unsatisfactory state of affairs by presenting a general and theory-neutral account of computation and information processing. We also apply our framework by analyzing the relations between computation and information processing on one hand and classicism and connectionism/computational neuroscience on the other. We defend the relevance to cognitive science of both computation, at least in a generic sense, and information processing, in three important senses of the term. Our account advances several foundational debates in cognitive science by untangling some of their conceptual knots in a theory-neutral way. By leveling the playing field, we pave the way for the future resolution of the debates’ empirical aspects

Learning, Social Intelligence and the Turing Test - why an "out-of-the-box" Turing Machine will not pass the Turing Test

The Turing Test (TT) checks for human intelligence, rather than any putative general intelligence. It involves repeated interaction requiring learning in the form of adaption to the human conversation partner. It is a macro-level post-hoc test in contrast to the definition of a Turing Machine (TM), which is a prior micro-level definition. This raises the question of whether learning is just another computational process, i.e. can be implemented as a TM. Here we argue that learning or adaption is fundamentally different from computation, though it does involve processes that can be seen as computations. To illustrate this difference we compare (a) designing a TM and (b) learning a TM, defining them for the purpose of the argument. We show that there is a well-defined sequence of problems which are not effectively designable but are learnable, in the form of the bounded halting problem. Some characteristics of human intelligence are reviewed including it's: interactive nature, learning abilities, imitative tendencies, linguistic ability and context-dependency. A story that explains some of these is the Social Intelligence Hypothesis. If this is broadly correct, this points to the necessity of a considerable period of acculturation (social learning in context) if an artificial intelligence is to pass the TT. Whilst it is always possible to 'compile' the results of learning into a TM, this would not be a designed TM and would not be able to continually adapt (pass future TTs). We conclude three things, namely that: a purely "designed" TM will never pass the TT; that there is no such thing as a general intelligence since it necessary involves learning; and that learning/adaption and computation should be clearly distinguished.Comment: 10 pages, invited talk at Turing Centenary Conference CiE 2012, special session on "The Turing Test and Thinking Machines

Progressive Analytics: A Computation Paradigm for Exploratory Data Analysis

Exploring data requires a fast feedback loop from the analyst to the system, with a latency below about 10 seconds because of human cognitive limitations. When data becomes large or analysis becomes complex, sequential computations can no longer be completed in a few seconds and data exploration is severely hampered. This article describes a novel computation paradigm called Progressive Computation for Data Analysis or more concisely Progressive Analytics, that brings at the programming language level a low-latency guarantee by performing computations in a progressive fashion. Moving this progressive computation at the language level relieves the programmer of exploratory data analysis systems from implementing the whole analytics pipeline in a progressive way from scratch, streamlining the implementation of scalable exploratory data analysis systems. This article describes the new paradigm through a prototype implementation called ProgressiVis, and explains the requirements it implies through examples.Comment: 10 page