Routing in mobile opportunistic social networks with selfish nodes

When the connection to Internet is not available during networking activities, an opportunistic approach exploits the encounters between mobile human-carried devices for exchanging information. When users encounter each other, their handheld devices can communicate in a cooperative way, using the encounter opportunities for forwarding their messages, in a wireless manner. But, analyzing real behaviors, most of the nodes exhibit selfish behaviors, mostly to preserve the limited resources (data buffers and residual energy). That is the reason why node selfishness should be taken into account when describing networking activities: In this paper, we first evaluate the effects of node selfishness in opportunistic networks. Then, we propose a routing mechanism for managing node selfishness in opportunistic communications, namely, SORSI (Social-based Opportunistic Routing with Selfishness detection and Incentive mechanisms). SORSI exploits the social-based nature of node mobility and other social features of nodes to optimize message dissemination together with a selfishness detection mechanism, aiming at discouraging selfish behaviors and boosting data forwarding. Simulating several percentages of selfish nodes, our results on real-world mobility traces show that SORSI is able to outperform the social-based schemes Bubble Rap and SPRINT-SELF, employing also selfishness management in terms of message delivery ratio, overhead cost, and end-to-end average latency. Moreover, SORSI achieves delivery ratios and average latencies comparable to Epidemic Routing while having a significant lower overhead cost

Evaluating a reinforcement learning algorithm with a general intelligence test

In this paper we apply the recent notion of anytime universal intelligence tests to the evaluation of a popular reinforcement learning algorithm, Q-learning. We show that a general approach to intelligence evaluation of AI algorithms is feasible. This top-down (theory-derived) approach is based on a generation of environments under a Solomonoff universal distribution instead of using a pre-defined set of specific tasks, such as mazes, problem repositories, etc. This first application of a general intelligence test to a reinforcement learning algorithm brings us to the issue of task-specific vs. general AI agents. This, in turn, suggests new avenues for AI agent evaluation and AI competitions, and also conveys some further insights about the performance of specific algorithms. © 2011 Springer-Verlag.We are grateful for the funding from the Spanish MEC and MICINN for projects TIN2009-06078-E/TIN, Consolider-Ingenio CSD2007-00022 and TIN2010-21062-C02, for MEC FPU grant AP2006-02323, and Generalitat Valenciana for Prometeo/2008/051.Insa Cabrera, J.; Dowe, DL.; Hernández Orallo, J. (2011). Evaluating a reinforcement learning algorithm with a general intelligence test. En Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Springer Verlag (Germany). 7023:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25274-7_1S1117023Dowe, D.L., Hajek, A.R.: A non-behavioural, computational extension to the Turing Test. In: Intl. Conf. on Computational Intelligence & multimedia applications (ICCIMA 1998), Gippsland, Australia, pp. 101–106 (1998)Genesereth, M., Love, N., Pell, B.: General game playing: Overview of the AAAI competition. AI Magazine 26(2), 62 (2005)Hernández-Orallo, J.: Beyond the Turing Test. J. Logic, Language & Information 9(4), 447–466 (2000)Hernández-Orallo, J.: A (hopefully) non-biased universal environment class for measuring intelligence of biological and artificial systems. In: Hutter, M., et al. (eds.) 3rd Intl. Conf. on Artificial General Intelligence, Atlantis, pp. 182–183 (2010)Hernández-Orallo, J.: On evaluating agent performance in a fixed period of time. In: Hutter, M., et al. (eds.) 3rd Intl. Conf. on Artificial General Intelligence, pp. 25–30. Atlantis Press (2010)Hernández-Orallo, J., Dowe, D.L.: Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence 174(18), 1508–1539 (2010)Legg, S., Hutter, M.: A universal measure of intelligence for artificial agents. Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 19, 1509 (2005)Legg, S., Hutter, M.: Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines 17(4), 391–444 (2007)Levin, L.A.: Universal sequential search problems. Problems of Information Transmission 9(3), 265–266 (1973)Li, M., Vitányi, P.: An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications, 3rd edn. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. (2008)Sanghi, P., Dowe, D.L.: A computer program capable of passing IQ tests. In: Proc. 4th ICCS International Conference on Cognitive Science (ICCS 2003), Sydney, Australia, pp. 570–575 (2003)Solomonoff, R.J.: A formal theory of inductive inference. Part I. Information and Control 7(1), 1–22 (1964)Strehl, A.L., Li, L., Wiewiora, E., Langford, J., Littman, M.L.: PAC model-free reinforcement learning. In: Proc. of the 23rd Intl. Conf. on Machine Learning, ICML 2006, New York, pp. 881–888 (2006)Sutton, R.S., Barto, A.G.: Reinforcement learning: An introduction. The MIT press (1998)Turing, A.M.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59, 433–460 (1950)Veness, J., Ng, K.S., Hutter, M., Silver, D.: Reinforcement learning via AIXI approximation. In: Proc. 24th Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2010), pp. 605–611 (2010)Watkins, C.J.C.H., Dayan, P.: Q-learning. Machine learning 8(3), 279–292 (1992)Weyns, D., Parunak, H.V.D., Michel, F., Holvoet, T., Ferber, J.: Environments for multiagent systems state-of-the-art and research challenges. In: Weyns, D., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3374, pp. 1–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Whiteson, S., Tanner, B., White, A.: The Reinforcement Learning Competitions. The AI magazine 31(2), 81–94 (2010)Woergoetter, F., Porr, B.: Reinforcement learning. Scholarpedia 3(3), 1448 (2008)Zatuchna, Z., Bagnall, A.: Learning mazes with aliasing states: An LCS algorithm with associative perception. Adaptive Behavior 17(1), 28–57 (2009

AGI and the Knight-Darwin Law: why idealized AGI reproduction requires collaboration

Can an AGI create a more intelligent AGI? Under idealized assumptions, for a certain theoretical type of intelligence, our answer is: “Not without outside help”. This is a paper on the mathematical structure of AGI populations when parent AGIs create child AGIs. We argue that such populations satisfy a certain biological law. Motivated by observations of sexual reproduction in seemingly-asexual species, the Knight-Darwin Law states that it is impossible for one organism to asexually produce another, which asexually produces another, and so on forever: that any sequence of organisms (each one a child of the previous) must contain occasional multi-parent organisms, or must terminate. By proving that a certain measure (arguably an intelligence measure) decreases when an idealized parent AGI single-handedly creates a child AGI, we argue that a similar Law holds for AGIs

On the nature and impact of self-similarity in real-time systems

In real-time systems with highly variable task execution times simplistic task models are insufficient to accurately model and to analyze the system. Variability can be tackled using distributions rather than a single value, but the proper charac- terization depends on the degree of variability. Self-similarity is one of the deep- est kinds of variability. It characterizes the fact that a workload is not only highly variable, but it is also bursty on many time-scales. This paper identifies in which situations this source of indeterminism can appear in a real-time system: the com- bination of variability in task inter-arrival times and execution times. Although self- similarity is not a claim for all systems with variable execution times, it is not unusual in some applications with real-time requirements, like video processing, networking and gaming. The paper shows how to properly model and to analyze self-similar task sets and how improper modeling can mask deadline misses. The paper derives an analyti- cal expression for the dependence of the deadline miss ratio on the degree of self- similarity and proofs its negative impact on real-time systems performance through system¿s modeling and simulation. This study about the nature and impact of self- similarity on soft real-time systems can help to reduce its effects, to choose the proper scheduling policies, and to avoid its causes at system design time.This work was developed under a grant from the European Union (FRESCOR-FP6/2005/IST/5-03402).Enrique Hernández-Orallo; Vila Carbó, JA. (2012). On the nature and impact of self-similarity in real-time systems. Real-Time Systems. 48(3):294-319. doi:10.1007/s11241-012-9146-0S294319483Abdelzaher TF, Sharma V, Lu C (2004) A utilization bound for aperiodic tasks and priority driven scheduling. IEEE Trans Comput 53(3):334–350Abeni L, Buttazzo G (1999) QoS guarantee using probabilistic deadlines. In: Proc of the Euromicro confererence on real-time systemsAbeni L, Buttazzo G (2004) Resource reservation in dynamic real-time systems. Real-Time Syst 37(2):123–167Anantharam V (1999) Scheduling strategies and long-range dependence. Queueing Syst 33(1–3):73–89Beran J (1994) Statistics for long-memory processes. Chapman and Hall, LondonBeran J, Sherman R, Taqqu M, Willinger W (1995) Long-range dependence in variable-bit-rate video traffic. IEEE Trans Commun 43(2):1566–1579Boxma O, Zwart B (2007) Tails in scheduling. SIGMETRICS Perform Eval Rev 34(4):13–20Brichet F, Roberts J, Simonian A, Veitch D (1996) Heavy traffic analysis of a storage model with long range dependent on/off sources. Queueing Syst 23(1):197–215Crovella M, Bestavros A (1997) Self-similarity in world wide web traffic: evidence and possible causes. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 5(6):835–846Dìaz J, Garcìa D, Kim K, Lee C, Bello LL, López J, Min LS, Mirabella O (2002) Stochastic analysis of periodic real-time systems. In: Proc of the 23rd IEEE real-time systems symposium, pp 289–300Erramilli A, Narayan O, Willinger W (1996) Experimental queueing analysis with long-range dependent packet traffic. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 4(2):209–223Erramilli A, Roughan M, Veitch D, Willinger W (2002) Self-similar traffic and network dynamics. Proc IEEE 90(5):800–819Gardner M (1999) Probabilistic analysis and scheduling of critical soft real-time systems. Phd thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignGarrett MW, Willinger W (1994) Analysis, modeling and generation of self-similar vbr video traffic. In: ACM SIGCOMMHarchol-Balter M (2002) Task assignment with unknown duration. J ACM 49(2):260–288Harchol-Balter M (2007) Foreword: Special issue on new perspective in scheduling. SIGMETRICS Perform Eval Rev 34(4):2–3Harchol-Balter M, Downey AB (1997) Exploiting process lifetime distributions for dynamic load balancing. ACM Trans Comput Syst 15(3):253–285Hernandez-Orallo E, Vila-Carbo J (2007) Network performance analysis based on histogram workload models. In: Proceedings of the 15th international symposium on modeling, analysis, and simulation of computer and telecommunication systems (MASCOTS), pp 331–336Hernandez-Orallo E, Vila-Carbo J (2010) Analysis of self-similar workload on real-time systems. In: IEEE real-time and embedded technology and applications symposium (RTAS). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 343–352Hernández-Orallo E, Vila-Carbó J (2010) Network queue and loss analysis using histogram-based traffic models. Comput Commun 33(2):190–201Hughes CJ, Kaul P, Adve SV, Jain R, Park C, Srinivasan J (2001) Variability in the execution of multimedia applications and implications for architecture. SIGARCH Comput Archit News 29(2):254–265Leland W, Ott TJ (1986) Load-balancing heuristics and process behavior. SIGMETRICS Perform Eval Rev 14(1):54–69Leland WE, Taqqu MS, Willinger W, Wilson DV (1994) On the self-similar nature of ethernet traffic (extended version). IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 2(1):1–15Liu CL, Layland JW (1973) Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard-real-time environment. J ACM 20(1):46–61Mandelbrot B (1965) Self-similar error clusters in communication systems and the concept of conditional stationarity. IEEE Trans Commun 13(1):71–90Mandelbrot BB (1969) Long run linearity, locally Gaussian processes, h-spectra and infinite variances. Int Econ Rev 10:82–113Norros I (1994) A storage model with self-similar input. Queueing Syst 16(3):387–396Norros I (2000) Queueing behavior under fractional Brownian traffic. In: Park K, Willinger W (eds) Self-similar network traffic and performance evaluation. Willey, New York, Chap 4Park K, Willinger W (2000) Self-similar network traffic: An overview. In: Park K, Willinger W (eds) Self-similar network traffic and performance evaluation. Willey, New York, Chap 1Paxson V, Floyd S (1995) Wide area traffic: the failure of Poisson modeling. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 3(3):226–244Rolls DA, Michailidis G, Hernández-Campos F (2005) Queueing analysis of network traffic: methodology and visualization tools. Comput Netw 48(3):447–473Rose O (1995) Statistical properties of mpeg video traffic and their impact on traffic modeling in atm systems. In: Conference on local computer networksRoy N, Hamm N, Madhukar M, Schmidt DC, Dowdy L (2009) The impact of variability on soft real-time system scheduling. In: RTCSA ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 15th IEEE international conference on embedded and real-time computing systems and applications. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 527–532Sha L, Abdelzaher T, Årzén KE, Cervin A, Baker T, Burns A, Buttazzo G, Caccamo M, Lehoczky J, Mok AK (2004) Real time scheduling theory: A historical perspective. Real-Time Syst 28(2):101–155Taqqu MS, Willinger W, Sherman R (1997) Proof of a fundamental result in self-similar traffic modeling. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 27(2):5–23Tia T, Deng Z, Shankar M, Storch M, Sun J, Wu L, Liu J (1995) Probabilistic performance guarantee for real-time tasks with varying computation times. In: Proc of the real-time technology and applications symposium, pp 164–173Vila-Carbó J, Hernández-Orallo E (2008) An analysis method for variable execution time tasks based on histograms. Real-Time Syst 38(1):1–37Willinger W, Taqqu M, Erramilli A (1996) A bibliographical guide to self-similar traffic and performance modeling for modern high-speed networks. In: Stochastic networks: Theory and applications, pp 339–366Willinger W, Taqqu MS, Sherman R, Wilson DV (1997) Self-similarity through high-variability: statistical analysis of ethernet lan traffic at the source level. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 5(1):71–8

Measuring the intelligence of an idealized mechanical knowing agent

We define a notion of the intelligence level of an idealized mechanical knowing agent. This is motivated by efforts within artificial intelligence research to define real-number intelligence levels of compli- cated intelligent systems. Our agents are more idealized, which allows us to define a much simpler measure of intelligence level for them. In short, we define the intelligence level of a mechanical knowing agent to be the supremum of the computable ordinals that have codes the agent knows to be codes of computable ordinals. We prove that if one agent knows certain things about another agent, then the former necessarily has a higher intelligence level than the latter. This allows our intelligence no- tion to serve as a stepping stone to obtain results which, by themselves, are not stated in terms of our intelligence notion (results of potential in- terest even to readers totally skeptical that our notion correctly captures intelligence). As an application, we argue that these results comprise evidence against the possibility of intelligence explosion (that is, the no- tion that sufficiently intelligent machines will eventually be capable of designing even more intelligent machines, which can then design even more intelligent machines, and so on)

Evaluation in artificial intelligence: From task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10462-016-9505-7.The evaluation of artificial intelligence systems and components is crucial for the progress of the discipline. In this paper we describe and critically assess the different ways AI systems are evaluated, and the role of components and techniques in these systems. We first focus on the traditional task-oriented evaluation approach. We identify three kinds of evaluation: human discrimination, problem benchmarks and peer confrontation. We describe some of the limitations of the many evaluation schemes and competitions in these three categories, and follow the progression of some of these tests. We then focus on a less customary (and challenging) ability-oriented evaluation approach, where a system is characterised by its (cognitive) abilities, rather than by the tasks it is designed to solve. We discuss several possibilities: the adaptation of cognitive tests used for humans and animals, the development of tests derived from algorithmic information theory or more integrated approaches under the perspective of universal psychometrics. We analyse some evaluation tests from AI that are better positioned for an ability-oriented evaluation and discuss how their problems and limitations can possibly be addressed with some of the tools and ideas that appear within the paper. Finally, we enumerate a series of lessons learnt and generic guidelines to be used when an AI evaluation scheme is under consideration.I thank the organisers of the AEPIA Summer School On Artificial Intelligence, held in September 2014, for giving me the opportunity to give a lecture on 'AI Evaluation'. This paper was born out of and evolved through that lecture. The information about many benchmarks and competitions discussed in this paper have been contrasted with information from and discussions with many people: M. Bedia, A. Cangelosi, C. Dimitrakakis, I. GarcIa-Varea, Katja Hofmann, W. Langdon, E. Messina, S. Mueller, M. Siebers and C. Soares. Figure 4 is courtesy of F. Martinez-Plumed. Finally, I thank the anonymous reviewers, whose comments have helped to significantly improve the balance and coverage of the paper. This work has been partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish MINECO under Grants TIN 2013-45732-C4-1-P, TIN 2015-69175-C4-1-R and by Generalitat Valenciana PROMETEOII2015/013.José Hernández-Orallo (2016). Evaluation in artificial intelligence: From task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement. Artificial Intelligence Review. 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9505-7S151Abel D, Agarwal A, Diaz F, Krishnamurthy A, Schapire RE (2016) Exploratory gradient boosting for reinforcement learning in complex domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.04119Adams S, Arel I, Bach J, Coop R, Furlan R, Goertzel B, Hall JS, Samsonovich A, Scheutz M, Schlesinger M, Shapiro SC, Sowa J (2012) Mapping the landscape of human-level artificial general intelligence. AI Mag 33(1):25–42Adams SS, Banavar G, Campbell M (2016) I-athlon: towards a multi-dimensional Turing test. AI Mag 37(1):78–84Alcalá J, Fernández A, Luengo J, Derrac J, García S, Sánchez L, Herrera F (2010) Keel data-mining software tool: data set repository, integration of algorithms and experimental analysis framework. J Mult Valued Logic Soft Comput 17:255–287Alexander JRM, Smales S (1997) Intelligence, learning and long-term memory. Personal Individ Differ 23(5):815–825Alpcan T, Everitt T, Hutter M (2014) Can we measure the difficulty of an optimization problem? In: IEEE information theory workshop (ITW)Alur R, Bodik R, Juniwal G, Martin MMK, Raghothaman M, Seshia SA, Singh R, Solar-Lezama A, Torlak E, Udupa A (2013) Syntax-guided synthesis. In: Formal methods in computer-aided design (FMCAD), 2013, IEEE, pp 1–17Alvarado N, Adams SS, Burbeck S, Latta C (2002) Beyond the Turing test: performance metrics for evaluating a computer simulation of the human mind. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on development and learning, IEEE, pp 147–152Amigoni F, Bastianelli E, Berghofer J, Bonarini A, Fontana G, Hochgeschwender N, Iocchi L, Kraetzschmar G, Lima P, Matteucci M, Miraldo P, Nardi D, Schiaffonati V (2015) Competitions for benchmarking: task and functionality scoring complete performance assessment. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 22(3):53–61Anderson J, Lebiere C (2003) The Newell test for a theory of cognition. Behav Brain Sci 26(5):587–601Anderson J, Baltes J, Cheng CT (2011) Robotics competitions as benchmarks for AI research. Knowl Eng Rev 26(01):11–17Arel I, Rose DC, Karnowski TP (2010) Deep machine learning—a new frontier in artificial intelligence research. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 5(4):13–18Asada M, Hosoda K, Kuniyoshi Y, Ishiguro H, Inui T, Yoshikawa Y, Ogino M, Yoshida C (2009) Cognitive developmental robotics: a survey. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 1(1):12–34Aziz H, Brill M, Fischer F, Harrenstein P, Lang J, Seedig HG (2015) Possible and necessary winners of partial tournaments. J Artif Intell Res 54:493–534Bache K, Lichman M (2013) UCI machine learning repository. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/mlBagnall AJ, Zatuchna ZV (2005) On the classification of maze problems. In: Bull L, Kovacs T (eds) Foundations of learning classifier system. Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol. 183, Springer, pp 305–316. http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11319122_12Baldwin D, Yadav SB (1995) The process of research investigations in artificial intelligence - a unified view. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(5):852–861Bellemare MG, Naddaf Y, Veness J, Bowling M (2013) The arcade learning environment: an evaluation platform for general agents. J Artif Intell Res 47:253–279Besold TR (2014) A note on chances and limitations of psychometric ai. In: KI 2014: advances in artificial intelligence. Springer, pp 49–54Biever C (2011) Ultimate IQ: one test to rule them all. New Sci 211(2829, 10 September 2011):42–45Borg M, Johansen SS, Thomsen DL, Kraus M (2012) Practical implementation of a graphics Turing test. In: Advances in visual computing. Springer, pp 305–313Boring EG (1923) Intelligence as the tests test it. New Repub 35–37Bostrom N (2014) Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, OxfordBrazdil P, Carrier CG, Soares C, Vilalta R (2008) Metalearning: applications to data mining. Springer, New YorkBringsjord S (2011) Psychometric artificial intelligence. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 23(3):271–277Bringsjord S, Schimanski B (2003) What is artificial intelligence? Psychometric AI as an answer. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 887–893Brundage M (2016) Modeling progress in ai. AAAI 2016 Workshop on AI, Ethics, and SocietyBuchanan BG (1988) Artificial intelligence as an experimental science. Springer, New YorkBuhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s mechanical turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6(1):3–5Bursztein E, Aigrain J, Moscicki A, Mitchell JC (2014) The end is nigh: generic solving of text-based captchas. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX conference on Offensive Technologies, USENIX Association, p 3Campbell M, Hoane AJ, Hsu F (2002) Deep Blue. Artif Intell 134(1–2):57–83Cangelosi A, Schlesinger M, Smith LB (2015) Developmental robotics: from babies to robots. MIT Press, CambridgeCaputo B, Müller H, Martinez-Gomez J, Villegas M, Acar B, Patricia N, Marvasti N, Üsküdarlı S, Paredes R, Cazorla M et al (2014) Imageclef 2014: overview and analysis of the results. In: Information access evaluation. Multilinguality, multimodality, and interaction, Springer, pp 192–211Carlson A, Betteridge J, Kisiel B, Settles B, Hruschka ER Jr, Mitchell TM (2010) Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning. In: AAAI, vol 5, p 3Carroll JB (1993) Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCaruana R (1997) Multitask learning. Mach Learn 28(1):41–75Chaitin GJ (1982) Gödel’s theorem and information. Int J Theor Phys 21(12):941–954Chandrasekaran B (1990) What kind of information processing is intelligence? In: The foundation of artificial intelligence—a sourcebook. Cambridge University Press, pp 14–46Chater N (1999) The search for simplicity: a fundamental cognitive principle? Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 52(2):273–302Chater N, Vitányi P (2003) Simplicity: a unifying principle in cognitive science? Trends Cogn Sci 7(1):19–22Chu Z, Gianvecchio S, Wang H, Jajodia S (2010) Who is tweeting on twitter: human, bot, or cyborg? In: Proceedings of the 26th annual computer security applications conference, ACM, pp 21–30Cochran WG (2007) Sampling techniques. Wiley, New YorkCohen PR, Howe AE (1988) How evaluation guides AI research: the message still counts more than the medium. AI Mag 9(4):35Cohen Y (2013) Testing and cognitive enhancement. Technical repor, National Institute for Testing and Evaluation, Jerusalem, IsraelConrad JG, Zeleznikow J (2013) The significance of evaluation in AI and law: a case study re-examining ICAIL proceedings. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 186–191Conrad JG, Zeleznikow J (2015) The role of evaluation in ai and law. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 181–186Deary IJ, Der G, Ford G (2001) Reaction times and intelligence differences: a population-based cohort study. Intelligence 29(5):389–399Decker KS, Durfee EH, Lesser VR (1989) Evaluating research in cooperative distributed problem solving. Distrib Artif Intell 2:487–519Demšar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J Mach Learn Res 7:1–30Detterman DK (2011) A challenge to Watson. Intelligence 39(2–3):77–78Dimitrakakis C (2016) Personal communicationDimitrakakis C, Li G, Tziortziotis N (2014) The reinforcement learning competition 2014. AI Mag 35(3):61–65Dowe DL (2013) Introduction to Ray Solomonoff 85th memorial conference. In: Dowe DL (ed) Algorithmic probability and friends. Bayesian prediction and artificial intelligence, lecture notes in computer science, vol 7070. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–36Dowe DL, Hajek AR (1997) A computational extension to the Turing Test. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Australasian cognitive science society, University of Newcastle, NSW, AustraliaDowe DL, Hajek AR (1998) A non-behavioural, computational extension to the Turing test. In: International conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applications (ICCIMA’98), Gippsland, Australia, pp 101–106Dowe DL, Hernández-Orallo J (2012) IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence 40(2):77–81Dowe DL, Hernández-Orallo J (2014) How universal can an intelligence test be? Adapt Behav 22(1):51–69Drummond C (2009) Replicability is not reproducibility: nor is it good science. In: Proceedings of the evaluation methods for machine learning workshop at the 26th ICML, Montreal, CanadaDrummond C, Japkowicz N (2010) Warning: statistical benchmarking is addictive. Kicking the habit in machine learning. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 22(1):67–80Duan Y, Chen X, Houthooft R, Schulman J, Abbeel P (2016) Benchmarking deep reinforcement learning for continuous control. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06778Eden AH, Moor JH, Soraker JH, Steinhart E (2013) Singularity hypotheses: a scientific and philosophical assessment. Springer, New YorkEdmondson W (2012) The intelligence in ETI—what can we know? Acta Astronaut 78:37–42Elo AE (1978) The rating of chessplayers, past and present, vol 3. Batsford, LondonEmbretson SE, Reise SP (2000) Item response theory for psychologists. L. Erlbaum, HillsdaleEvans JM, Messina ER (2001) Performance metrics for intelligent systems. NIST Special Publication SP, pp 101–104Everitt T, Lattimore T, Hutter M (2014) Free lunch for optimisation under the universal distribution. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), IEEE, pp 167–174Falkenauer E (1998) On method overfitting. J Heuristics 4(3):281–287Feldman J (2003) Simplicity and complexity in human concept learning. Gen Psychol 38(1):9–15Ferrando PJ (2009) Difficulty, discrimination, and information indices in the linear factor analysis model for continuous item responses. Appl Psychol Meas 33(1):9–24Ferrando PJ (2012) Assessing the discriminating power of item and test scores in the linear factor-analysis model. Psicológica 33:111–139Ferri C, Hernández-Orallo J, Modroiu R (2009) An experimental comparison of performance measures for classification. Pattern Recogn Lett 30(1):27–38Ferrucci D, Brown E, Chu-Carroll J, Fan J, Gondek D, Kalyanpur AA, Lally A, Murdock J, Nyberg E, Prager J et al (2010) Building Watson: an overview of the DeepQA project. AI Mag 31(3):59–79Fogel DB (1991) The evolution of intelligent decision making in gaming. Cybern Syst 22(2):223–236Gaschnig J, Klahr P, Pople H, Shortliffe E, Terry A (1983) Evaluation of expert systems: issues and case studies. Build Exp Syst 1:241–278Geissman JR, Schultz RD (1988) Verification & validation. AI Exp 3(2):26–33Genesereth M, Love N, Pell B (2005) General game playing: overview of the AAAI competition. AI Mag 26(2):62Gerónimo D, López AM (2014) Datasets and benchmarking. In: Vision-based pedestrian protection systems for intelligent vehicles. Springer, pp 87–93Goertzel B, Pennachin C (eds) (2007) Artificial general intelligence. Springer, New YorkGoertzel B, Arel I, Scheutz M (2009) Toward a roadmap for human-level artificial general intelligence: embedding HLAI systems in broad, approachable, physical or virtual contexts. Artif Gen Intell Roadmap InitiatGoldreich O, Vadhan S (2007) Special issue on worst-case versus average-case complexity editors’ foreword. Comput complex 16(4):325–330Gordon BB (2007) Report on panel discussion on (re-)establishing or increasing collaborative links between artificial intelligence and intelligent systems. In: Messina ER, Madhavan R (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on performance metrics for intelligent systems, pp 302–303Gulwani S, Hernández-Orallo J, Kitzelmann E, Muggleton SH, Schmid U, Zorn B (2015) Inductive programming meets the real world. Commun ACM 58(11):90–99Hand DJ (2004) Measurement theory and practice. A Hodder Arnold Publication, LondonHernández-Orallo J (2000a) Beyond the Turing test. J Logic Lang Inf 9(4):447–466Hernández-Orallo J (2000b) On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In: Meystel A (ed) Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, pp 1–8Hernández-Orallo J (2000c) Thesis: computational measures of information gain and reinforcement in inference processes. AI Commun 13(1):49–50Hernández-Orallo J (2010) A (hopefully) non-biased universal environment class for measuring intelligence of biological and artificial systems. In: Artificial general intelligence, 3rd International Conference. Atlantis Press, Extended report at http://users.dsic.upv.es/proy/anynt/unbiased.pdf , pp 182–183Hernández-Orallo J (2014) On environment difficulty and discriminating power. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 29(3):402–454. doi: 10.1007/s10458-014-9257-1Hernández-Orallo J, Dowe DL (2010) Measuring universal intelligence: towards an anytime intelligence test. Artif Intell 174(18):1508–1539Hernández-Orallo J, Dowe DL (2013) On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Minds Mach 23:179–210Hernández-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 (EIS’98), ICSC Press, pp 146–163Hernández-Orallo J, Dowe DL, España-Cubillo S, Hernández-Lloreda MV, Insa-Cabrera J (2011) On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In: Schmidhuber J, Thórisson K, Looks M (eds) Artificial general intelligence, LNAI, vol 6830. Springer, New York, pp 82–91Hernández-Orallo J, Flach P, Ferri C (2012a) A unified view of performance metrics: translating threshold choice into expected classification loss. J Mach Learn Res 13(1):2813–2869Hernández-Orallo J, Insa-Cabrera J, Dowe DL, Hibbard B (2012b) Turing Tests with Turing machines. In: Voronkov A (ed) Turing-100, EPiC Series, vol 10, pp 140–156Hernández-Orallo J, Dowe DL, Hernández-Lloreda MV (2014) Universal psychometrics: measuring cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Cogn Syst Res 27:50–74Hernández-Orallo J, Martínez-Plumed F, Schmid U, Siebers M, Dowe DL (2016) Computer models solving intelligence test problems: progress and implications. Artif Intell 230:74–107Herrmann E, Call J, Hernández-Lloreda MV, Hare B, Tomasello M (2007) Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science 317(5843):1360–1366Hibbard B (2009) Bias and no free lunch in formal measures of intelligence. J Artif Gen Intell 1(1):54–61Hingston P (2010) A new design for a Turing Test for bots. In: 2010 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence and games (CIG), IEEE, pp 345–350Hingston P (2012) Believable bots: can computers play like people?. Springer, New YorkHo TK, Basu M (2002) Complexity measures of supervised classification problems. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(3):289–300Hutter M (2007) Universal algorithmic intelligence: a mathematical top $$\rightarrow$$ → down approach. In: Goertzel B, Pennachin C (eds) Artificial general intelligence, cognitive technologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 227–290Igel C, Toussaint M (2005) A no-free-lunch theorem for non-uniform distributions of target functions. J Math Model Algorithms 3(4):313–322Insa-Cabrera J (2016) Towards a universal test of social intelligence. Ph.D. thesis, Departament de Sistemes Informátics i Computació, UPVInsa-Cabrera J, Dowe DL, España-Cubillo S, Hernández-Lloreda MV, Hernández-Orallo J (2011a) Comparing humans and ai agents. In: Schmidhuber J, Thórisson K, Looks M (eds) Artificial general intelligence, LNAI, vol 6830. Springer, New York, pp 122–132Insa-Cabrera J, Dowe DL, Hernández-Orallo J (2011) Evaluating a reinforcement learning algorithm with a general intelligence test. In: Lozano JA, Gamez JM (eds) Current topics in artificial intelligence. CAEPIA 2011, LNAI series 7023. Springer, New YorkInsa-Cabrera J, Benacloch-Ayuso JL, Hernández-Orallo J (2012) On measuring social intelligence: experiments on competition and cooperation. In: Bach J, Goertzel B, Iklé M (eds) AGI, lecture notes in computer science, vol 7716. Springer, New York, pp 126–135Jacoff A, Messina E, Weiss BA, Tadokoro S, Nakagawa Y (2003) Test arenas and performance metrics for urban search and rescue robots. In: Proceedings of 2003 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2003 (IROS 2003), IEEE, vol 4, pp 3396–3403Japkowicz N, Shah M (2011) Evaluating learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeJiang J (2008) A literature survey on domain adaptation of statistical classifiers. http://sifaka.cs.uiuc.edu/jiang4/domain_adaptation/surveyJohnson M, Hofmann K, Hutton T, Bignell D (2016) The Malmo platform for artificial intelligence experimentation. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI)Keith TZ, Reynolds MR (2010) Cattell–Horn–Carroll abilities and cognitive tests: what we’ve learned from 20 years of research. Psychol Schools 47(7):635–650Ketter W, Symeonidis A (2012) Competitive benchmarking: lessons learned from the trading agent competition. AI Mag 33(2):103Khreich W, Granger E, Miri A, Sabourin R (2012) A survey of techniques for incremental learning of HMM parameters. Inf Sci 197:105–130Kim JH (2004) Soccer robotics, vol 11. Springer, New YorkKitano H, Asada M, Kuniyoshi Y, Noda I, Osawa E (1997) Robocup: the robot world cup initiative. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents, ACM, pp 340–347Kleiner K (2011) Who are you calling bird-brained? An attempt is being made to devise a universal intelligence test. Economist 398(8723, 5 March 2011):82Knuth DE (1973) Sorting and searching, volume 3 of the art of computer programming. Addison-Wesley, ReadingKoza JR (2010) Human-competitive results produced by genetic programming. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 11(3–4):251–284Krueger J, Osherson D (1980) On the psychology of structural simplicity. In: Jusczyk PW, Klein RM (eds) The nature of thought: essays in honor of D. O. Hebb. Psychology Press, London, pp 187–205Langford J (2005) Clever methods of overfitting. Machine Learning (Theory). http://hunch.netLangley P (1987) Research papers in machine learning. Mach Learn 2(3):195–198Langley P (2011) The changing science of machine learning. Mach Learn 82(3):275–279Langley P (2012) The cognitive systems paradigm. Adv Cogn Syst 1:3–13Lattimore T, Hutter M (2013) No free lunch versus Occam’s razor in supervised learning. Algorithmic Probability and Friends. Springer, Bayesian Prediction and Artificial Intelligence, pp 223–235Leeuwenberg ELJ, Van Der Helm PA (2012) Structural information theory: the simplicity of visual form. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeLegg S, Hutter M (2007a) Tests of machine intelligence. In: Lungarella M, Iida F, Bongard J, Pfeifer R (eds) 50 Years of Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4850, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 232–242. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-77296-5_22Legg S, Hutter M (2007b) Universal intelligence: a definition of machine intelligence. Minds Mach 17(4):391–444Legg S, Veness J (2013) An approximation of the universal intelligence measure. Algorithmic Probability and Friends. Springer, Bayesian Prediction and Artificial Intelligence, pp 236–249Levesque HJ (2014) On our best behaviour. Artif Intell 212:27–35Levesque HJ, Davis E, Morgenstern L (2012) The winog

Vasorelaxant activity of indole alkaloids from Tabernaemontana dichotoma.

The aim of this study was to search for bioactive natural products from medicinal plants targeting vasorelaxant activity and we found the methanol extract from bark of Tabernaemontana dichotoma showed vasorelaxant activity on rat aorta. We isolated eight indole alkaloids including 10-methoxyalstonerine (1), a new macroline type indole alkaloid, from bark of T. dichotoma. These were respectively identified as 10-methoxyaffinisine (2), lochnerine (3), cathafoline (4), (−)-alstonerine (5), 19,20-dehydro-10-methoxytalcarpine (6), alstonisine (7), and alstonal (8) based on spectroscopic analysis. Among them, sarpagine type (2 and 3), akuammiline type (4), and macroline oxindole type (7 and 8) showed potent vasorelaxant activity. Mechanism of action on vasorelaxant activity of 10-methoxyaffinisine (2), cathafoline (4), and alstonisine (7) was clarified. Effects of 10-methoxyaffinisine (2), cathafoline (4), and alstonisine (7) were partially mediated the NO release from endothelial cells. Furthermore, 10-methoxyaffinisine (2) and alstonisine (7) attribute to the inhibitory effect of VDC and ROC, and cathafoline (4) have inhibitory effect on Ca2+ influx via ROC. In addition, 10-methoxyaffinisine (2) as a major compound from bark of T. dichotoma showed hypotensive effect on normotensive rats in vivo

Resveratrol: A Multifunctional Compound Improving Endothelial Function: Editorial to: “Resveratrol Supplementation Gender Independently Improves Endothelial Reactivity and Suppresses Superoxide Production in Healthy Rats” by S. Soylemez et al.

The red wine polyphenol resveratrol boosts endothelium-dependent and -independent vasorelaxations. The improvement of endothelial function by resveratrol is largely attributable to nitric oxide (NO) derived from endothelial NO synthase (eNOS). By stimulating eNOS expression, eNOS phosphorylation and eNOS deacetylation, resveratrol enhances endothelial NO production. By upregulating antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutase, catalase and glutathione peroxidase) and suppressing the expression and activity of NADPH oxidases, resveratrol inhibits superoxide-mediated NO inactivation. Some resveratrol effects are mediated by sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) or estrogen receptors, respectively

Analysis of parcel-based image classification methods for monitoring the activities of the Land Bank of Galicia (Spain)

[EN] The abandonment of agricultural plots entails a low economic productivity of the land and a higher vulnerability to wildfires and degradation of affected areas. In this sense, the local government of Galicia is promoting new methodologies based on high-resolution images in order to classify the territory in basic and generic land uses. This procedure will be used to control the sustainable management of plots belonging to the Land Bank. This paper presents an application study for maintaining and updating land use/land cover geospatial databases using parcel-oriented classification. The test is performed over two geographic areas of Galicia, in the northwest of Spain. In this region, forest and shrublands in mountain environments are very heterogeneous with many private unproductive plots, some of which are in a high state of abandonment. The dataset is made of high spatial resolution multispectral imagery, cadastral cartography employed to define the image objects (plots), and field samples used to define evaluation and training samples. A set of descriptive features is computed quantifying different properties of the objects, i.e. spectral, texture, structural, and geometrical. Additionally, the effect on the classification and updating processes of the historical land use as a descriptive feature is tested. Three different classification methodologies are analyzed: linear discriminant analysis, decision trees, and support vector machine. The overall accuracies of the classifications obtained are always above 90 % and support vector machine method is proved to provide the best performance. Forest and shrublands areas are especially undefined, so the discrimination between these two classes is low. The results enable to conclude that the use of automatic parcel-oriented classification techniques for updating tasks of land use/land cover geospatial databases, is effective in the areas tested, particularly when broad and well defined classes are required.The authors appreciate the collaboration and support provided by Xunta de Galicia, Sociedade para o Desenvolvemento Comarcal de Galícia, and Banco de Terras de Galicia. The financial support provided by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación in the framework of the projects CGL2010-19591/BTE and CGL2009-14220 is also acknowledged.Hermosilla, T.; Díaz Manso, J.; Ruiz Fernández, LÁ.; Recio Recio, JA.; Fernández-Sarría, A.; Ferradáns Nogueira, P. (2012). Analysis of parcel-based image classification methods for monitoring the activities of the Land Bank of Galicia (Spain). Applied Geomatics. 4(4):245-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12518-012-0087-zS24525544Arikan M (2004) Parcel-based crop mapping through multi-temporal masking classification of landsat 7 images in Karacabey, Turkey. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 35:1085–1090Balaguer A, Ruiz LA, Hermosilla T, Recio JA (2010) Definition of a comprehensive set of texture semivariogram features and their evaluation for object-oriented image classification. Comput Geosci 36(2):231–240Balaguer-Besser A, Hermosilla T, Recio JA, Ruiz LA (2011) Semivariogram calculation optimization for object-oriented image classification. Model Sci Educ Learn 4(7):91–104Blaschke T (2010) Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J Photogramm 65(1):2–16Cohen Y, Shoshany M (2000) Integration of remote sensing, GIS and expert knowledge in national knowledge-based crop recognition in Mediterranean environment. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens 33(Part B7):280–286Congalton R (1991) A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens Environ 37(1):35–46Dadhwal VK, Singh RP, Dutta S, Parihar JS (2002) Remote sensing based crop inventory: a review of Indian experience. Trop Ecol 43(1):107–122De Wit AJW, Clevers JGPW (2004) Efficiency and accuracy of per-field classification for operational crop mapping. Int J Remote Sens 25:4091–4112Del Frate F, Pacifici F, Solimini D (2008) Monitoring urban land cover in Rome, Italy, and its changes by single-polarization multitemporal SAR images. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 1:87–97Díaz-Manso JM, Ferradáns-Nogueira P (2011) Modelo de uso actual da terra. In: Cobelle-Rico EJ, Diaz-Manso JM, Crecente-Maseda R, Martínez-Rivas EM (eds) Mercado e Mobilidade de Terras en Galícia, 1st edn. Servizo de Publicacións e Intercambio Científico, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, pp 31–44Dupas CA (2000) SAR and LANDSAT TM image fusion for land cover classification in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest Domain. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens XXXIII(Part B1):96–103El Kady M, Mack CB (1992) Remote sensing for crop inventory of Egypt’s old agricultural lands. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens 29:176–185Everitt BS, Dunn G (2001) Applied multivariate data analysis, 2nd edn. Edward Arnold, LondonHaralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Texture features for image classification. IEEE Transact Syst Man Cybern 3(6):610–622Hermosilla T, Almonacid J, Fernández-Sarría A, Ruiz LA, Recio JA (2010) Combining features extracted from imagery and lidar data for object-oriented classification of forest areas. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 38(4/C7)Hernández Orallo J, Ramírez Quintana MJ, Ferri Ramírez C (2004) Introducción a la minería de datos. Pearson Educación S.A, MadridHomer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 National Land-Cover Database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70:829–840Huberty CJ (1994) Applied discriminant analysis. Wiley, New YorkLaws KI (1985) Goal-directed texture image segmentation. Appl Artif Intel II, SPIE 548:19–26Ormeci C, Alganci U, Sertel E (2010) Identification of crop areas using SPOT-5 data, FIG Congress 2010 Facing the Challenges—building the capacity. Sydney, Australia, pp 11–16Peled A, Gilichinsky M (2004) GIS-driven analyses of remotely sensed data for quality assessment of existing land cover classification. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 35Peled A, Gilichinsky M (2010) Knowledge-based classification of land cover for the quality assessment of GIS database. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 38:217–222Perveen F, Nagasawa R, Ali S, Husnain (2008) Evaluation of ASTER spectral bands for agricultural land cover mapping using pixel-based and object-based classification approaches. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 37(4-C1)Petit CC, Lambin EF (2002) Impact of data integration technique on historical land-use/land-cover change: comparing historical maps with remote sensing data in the Belgian Ardennes. Landsc Ecol 17:117–132Quinlan JR (1993) C4.5: Programs for machine learning. Kaufmann, San FranciscoRabe A, van der Linden S, Hostert P (2010) imageSVM, Version 2.1. www.hu-geomatics.deRecio JA, Hermosilla T, Ruiz LA, Fernández-Sarría A (2011) Historical land use as a feature for image classification. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77(4):377–387Ruiz LA, Fernández-Sarría A, Recio JA (2004) Texture feature extraction for classification of remote sensing data using wavelet decomposition: a comparative study. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 35(B4):1109–1115Ruiz LA, Recio JA, Hermosilla T, Fdez. Sarriá A (2009) Identification of agricultural and land cover database changes using object-oriented classification techniques. 33rd International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, May 4–8, Stresa (Italy)Ruiz LA, Recio JA, Fernández-Sarría A, Hermosilla T (2011) A feature extraction software tool for agricultural object-based image analysis. Comput Electron Agric 76(4):284–296Tansey K, Chambers I, Anstee A, Denniss A, Lamb A (2009) Object-oriented classification of very high resolution airborne imagery for the extraction of hedgerows and field margin cover in agricultural areas. Appl Geogr 29(2):145–157van der Linden S, Rabe A, Wirth F, Suess S, Okujeni A, Hostert P (2010) imageSVM regression, application manual: imageSVM version 2.1. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, GermanyVapnik VN (1998) Statistical learning theory. Wiley, New YorkWalsh SJ, McCleary AL, Mena CF, Shao Y, Tuttle JP, Gonzalez A, Atkinson R (2008) QuickBird and Hyperion data analysis of an invasive plant species in the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador: implications for control and land use management. Remote Sens Environ 112(5):1927–1941Walter V (2004) Object-based classification of remote sensing data for change detection. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 58:225–238Walter V (2005) Object-based evaluation of lidar and multiespectral data for automatic change detection in GIS databases. Geo-Inf Syst 18:10–15Zaragozí, B, Rabasa, A, Rodríguez-Sala, JJ, Navarro, JT, Belda, A, Ramón, A (2012) Modelling farmland abandonment: A study combining GIS and data mining techniques. Agric Ecosys Environ 155:124–132Zhang S, Liu X (2005) Realization of data mining model for expert classification using multi-scale spatial data. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 26(4/W6):107–11