A pearl on SAT solving in Prolog

A succinct SAT solver is presented that exploits the control provided by delay declarations to implement watched literals and unit propagation. Despite its brevity the solver is surprisingly powerful and its elegant use of Prolog constructs is presented as a programming pearl

Hiding solutions in random satisfiability problems: A statistical mechanics approach

A major problem in evaluating stochastic local search algorithms for NP-complete problems is the need for a systematic generation of hard test instances having previously known properties of the optimal solutions. On the basis of statistical mechanics results, we propose random generators of hard and satisfiable instances for the 3-satisfiability problem (3SAT). The design of the hardest problem instances is based on the existence of a first order ferromagnetic phase transition and the glassy nature of excited states. The analytical predictions are corroborated by numerical results obtained from complete as well as stochastic local algorithms.Comment: 5 pages, 4 figures, revised version to app. in PR

Static and Dynamic Portfolio Methods for Optimal Planning: An Empirical Analysis

Combining the complementary strengths of several algorithms through portfolio approaches has been demonstrated to be effective in solving a wide range of AI problems. Notably, portfolio techniques have been prominently applied to suboptimal (satisficing) AI planning. Here, we consider the construction of sequential planner portfolios for domainindependent optimal planning. Specifically, we introduce four techniques (three of which are dynamic) for per-instance planner schedule generation using problem instance features, and investigate the usefulness of a range of static and dynamic techniques for combining planners. Our extensive empirical analysis demonstrates the benefits of using static and dynamic sequential portfolios for optimal planning, and provides insights on the most suitable conditions for their fruitful exploitation

Improved Endpoints for Cancer Immunotherapy Trials

Unlike chemotherapy, which acts directly on the tumor, cancer immunotherapies exert their effects on the immune system and demonstrate new kinetics that involve building a cellular immune response, followed by changes in tumor burden or patient survival. Thus, adequate design and evaluation of some immunotherapy clinical trials require a new development paradigm that includes reconsideration of established endpoints. Between 2004 and 2009, several initiatives facilitated by the Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium of the Cancer Research Institute and partner organizations systematically evaluated an immunotherapy-focused clinical development paradigm and created the principles for redefining trial endpoints. On this basis, a body of clinical and laboratory data was generated that supports three novel endpoint recommendations. First, cellular immune response assays generate highly variable results. Assay harmonization in multicenter trials may minimize variability and help to establish cellular immune response as a reproducible biomarker, thus allowing investigation of its relationship with clinical outcomes. Second, immunotherapy may induce novel patterns of antitumor response not captured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or World Health Organization criteria. New immune-related response criteria were defined to more comprehensively capture all response patterns. Third, delayed separation of Kaplan–Meier curves in randomized immunotherapy trials can affect results. Altered statistical models describing hazard ratios as a function of time and recognizing differences before and after separation of curves may allow improved planning of phase III trials. These recommendations may improve our tools for cancer immunotherapy trials and may offer a more realistic and useful model for clinical investigation

Performance of serum-supplemented and serum-free media in IFNγ Elispot Assays for human T cells

The choice of serum for supplementation of media for T cell assays and in particular, Elispot has been a major challenge for assay performance, standardization, optimization, and reproducibility. The Assay Working Group of the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC-CRI) has recently identified the choice of serum to be the leading cause for variability and suboptimal performance in large international Elispot proficiency panels. Therefore, a serum task force was initiated to compare the performance of commercially available serum-free media to laboratories’ own medium/serum combinations. The objective of this project was to investigate whether a serum-free medium exists that performs as well as lab-own serum/media combinations with regard to antigen-specific responses and background reactivity in Elispot. In this way, a straightforward solution could be provided to address the serum challenge. Eleven laboratories tested peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from four donors for their reactivity against two peptide pools, following their own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Each laboratory performed five simultaneous experiments with the same SOP, the only difference between the experiments was the medium used. The five media were lab-own serum-supplemented medium, AIM-V, CTL, Optmizer, and X-Vivo. The serum task force results demonstrate compellingly that serum-free media perform as well as qualified medium/serum combinations, independent of the applied SOP. Recovery and viability of cells are largely unaffected by serum-free conditions even after overnight resting. Furthermore, one serum-free medium was identified that appears to enhance antigen-specific IFNγ-secretion

Ownership and control in a competitive industry

We study a differentiated product market in which an investor initially owns a controlling stake in one of two competing firms and may acquire a non-controlling or a controlling stake in a competitor, either directly using her own assets, or indirectly via the controlled firm. While industry profits are maximized within a symmetric two product monopoly, the investor attains this only in exceptional cases. Instead, she sometimes acquires a noncontrolling stake. Or she invests asymmetrically rather than pursuing a full takeover if she acquires a controlling one. Generally, she invests indirectly if she only wants to affect the product market outcome, and directly if acquiring shares is profitable per se. --differentiated products,separation of ownership and control,private benefits of control