HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: TOP? Graduate Programs in AI
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:00:43
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu's message of 4 Nov 92 14:24:57 MST

In article <1992Nov4.142458.3876@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:

>c) Artificial Life

>There were no schools found, it may be possible to become a "student" who
>works with Sante Fe Institute of complexity while pursuing a degree at
>another university.  Read the two A-Life conferences to find specific
>names and possible schools.

Here at Case Western Reserve University (in the Computer Engineering
and Science Department), we have a research group led by Randy Beer
that is conducting research on autonomous agents (artificial
creatures) controlled by dynamical neural networks.

In our group, research areas include analyzing the behavior of
autonomous agents as dynamical systems, evolving neural controllers
using genetic algorithms and other search techniques, and developing
agents that use simulated vision.  My research (I'm a Ph.D. student)
is on techniques for enabling agents to detect and escape from
patterns of static and cyclic behavior.

We also have a number of interdisciplinary research efforts with
professors and students in the departments of Biology (computational
neuroscience), Mechanical Engineering (applications for legged
robots), and Systems Engineering (applications to control systems).
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: almond@statsci.com (Russell G. Almond)
Subject: comp.ai
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc., Seattle, WA USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:45:15 GMT



I'm currently in the process of putting together a book on graphical
belief models and I would like to include an appendix listing known
programs for manipulating graphical belief models, like BELIEF or
TresBel or probabilistic graphical models, like Ideal and HUGIN.  I'm
interested in graphical models and all of their close cousins, like
influence diagrams, Bayes nets, etc.  Anything which represents
uncertainty with either probabilities or belief functions over a graph
is fair game.  

If anybody has such software which is available either for free or for
sale to the public I would appriciate a brief paragraph describing its
scopre an availability:

e.g.,

BELIEF --- Common LISP program for manipulating graphical belief
models, represents uncertainty with either belief functions or
probabilities and contains facilities for second order models
(probability/beleif function distributions over parameters).
Available free of charge via anonymous ftp from
ftp.stat.washington.edu.  

I would also be happy to get any sales literature, summary papers you
have on your system.  They can be send to the USnail address below.

Needless to say, I'll post a copy of the list here when I get it.

Thanks in advance.


			Russell Almond			   
Statistical Sciences, Inc.		
1700 Westlake Ave., N Suite 500		
Seattle, WA  98109			
(206) 283-8802				
almond@statsci.com
From: ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Subject: Re: TOP? Graduate Programs in AI
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:51:44 GMT


Here's my list, for what it's worth.  But first, a couple of disclaimers:

1.  This list bears fairly little resemblance to the conventional
wisdom about what the good schools are.  In part, that's a reflection
of personal biases on my part.  The list *certainly* reflects my
opinion that core AI (search, knowledge representation) is more
interesting than applied AI or connectionism.  It's also a reflection
of broad knowledge on my part about who is active in the field and who
isn't, who makes a good advisor and who doesn't, and so on.

2.  The list refers to AI *only*.  I'm not competent to judge computer
science departments as a whole, plain and simple.  If you're about to
apply to grad school, you take a big risk if you go somewhere that is
strong in AI and weak elsewhere, since you might (believe it or not)
change your mind about what you're interested in.

I also haven't included location in the list.  Stanford benefits
because it's near SRI, IBM Almaden, and Xerox Parc.  MIT benefits
similarly from being in Boston.  My list is based on members of the
various departments only.

3.  What follows are my opinions *only*.  I've tried to be as
objective as I can, but that probably doesn't count for much.  I'm
currently at Stanford, but will be moving to the University of Oregon
over the summer.  (In constructing the list, I considered myself a
member of U of O, not Stanford.)  I've also probably left out some
important places, and probably forgotten about some important people
at the places I *have* listed.  So that's yet another reason to take
my list with a grain of salt.

4.  I'm *not* trying to say anything about specific researchers here.
Some of the people I view as the best in the field are at schools that
I've ranked fairly poorly because the rest of their AI folks aren't as
strong.  I'm only trying to help prospective applicants, and hope that
my remarks are taken in that light only.

5.  I've ranked the schools out of a scale of 100.  That's not to say
that CMU is perfect; I'm just trying to convey a sense of my
impression of the magnitude of the differences between the choices.

All that said:

CMU		100
Toronto		 85
U Oregon	 75
UCLA		 75
MIT		 75
U Washington	 65
Stanford	 60

After that is a fairly large group (U Maryland, Penn, Pitt, Rochester,
Yale come to mind) that is probably around 45.  Then another large group
(U Texas Austin, Irvine, Waterloo and surely others) that is in the high
30's.

					Matt Ginsberg

Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: emily@azariah.tamu.edu (Emily Glass)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.ai.fuzzy
Organization: Texas A&M University, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:33:38 GMT


Is this an official request for votes?  I would prefer comp.fuzzy 
over comp.ai.fuzzy,  but either way, I vote "yes."
From: lou@cs.rutgers.edu (Lou Steinberg)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: TOP? Graduate Programs in AI
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:51:35 GMT
Reply-To: lou@cs.rutgers.edu
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
	08903
In-reply-to: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu's message of 4 Nov 92 21:24:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.142458.3876@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:

   This is an attempt at suggesting the "best" schools for various research.
   ...  Schools are "rated" approximately from top
   to bottom.  These are all very loose.

   1. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE best grad programs....

   Stanford, MIT, Yale
   Carnegie Melon

   Indiana, Illinois, Maryland

Rutgers definitely belongs is this second tier - we are not Stanford or CMU
(but then does Yale really belong in that group?), but in selected areas we are
quite good, if I do say so myself (I am on the Rutgers faculty).

My group works on AI applied to design.  We focus on both decision
making/search and on generating/using numerical models of physical
systems.  Current projects include work on design of microprocessors
and hydrodynamic design of boats.  Faculty include Saul Amarel, Lou
Steinberg (that's me), Tom Ellman, Andrew Gelsey, Jerry Richter, Chris
Tong, and Haym Hirsh.

Other areas of AI work at Rutgers include (I hope my colleagues will
forgive me if I distort or omit anything):

- Biomedical problems: diagnosis, medical image interpretation, 
	machine learning applied to DNA sequence intepretation, etc.
	Faculty include Kaz Kulikowski, Sholom Weiss (currently
	on leave) and Mick Noordewier

- Machine learning: primarily neural network and more traditional
	approaches to inductive learning.  In the past, Rutgers has
	been a hotbed of deductive learning work as well.  Haym Hirsh,
	Mick Noordewier, Eduardo Sontag (he's really in Math), Chris
	Tong, me, and Tom Ellman

- AI and data bases:  Alex Borgida, Tomasz Imielinski

- AI and legal reasoning: logics of legal reasoning (including
	modalities like "permitted" and "obligatory"), and generation &
	analysis of legal argument.  Thorne McCarty
--
					Lou Steinberg

uucp:   {pretty much any major site}!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!lou 
internet:   lou@cs.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: huyh7@fel.tno.nl (Huy)
Subject: efficient calculation of path distances in temporal databases.
Keywords: Temporal reasoning, path distance, backtracking
Organization: TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:40:34 GMT

Fellow travelers,

We are searching for an efficient path distance calculation algorithm,
applicable to temporal databases. The temporal database is virtually a graph of
timepoints connected by edges. The timepoints mark beginnings and endings of
events. Each edge is labeled by a pair of integers defining respectively the minimum and maximum duration between the connected timepoints. For instance,
if point A and point B are connected by an edge labeled with [3,6], the duration of the edge lies within 3 to 6 time units.

Currently, we have implemented an algorithm (in Prolog, for a planning system)
using backtracking over the distances already known and an aggregation on top
of this that determines the best path, given a start and endpoint. We have
further applied several heuristics to "cut" search options, however, the 
result is not satisfactory as yet.

We would very much appreciate suggestions that could set us on the right track.
Mind you, algorithms such as A*, simulated annealing, etc. are not the answer
due to the fact that most of the distances (graph connections) are not known.
A transitive closure is not the answer either, because this would result
in a tremendously large database, only enlarging the problem.

Thanks in advance,

regards,

Kees d'Huy and Arjan Keene
TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory, The Hague, The Netherlands.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Are we going to die,Sir?
Not now, Baldrick.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: eschwalb@tel-aviv.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: Baysian Rule Bases
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:48:58 GMT


We are now doing some research with baysian networks and are looking
for Baysian Rule Bases that are actually being used. Does anyone know
of such ? Is there any vendor that markets Baysian Nets as a Rule Base
System ?

Thakns,

     Eddie.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schwalb Eddie.                            email : eschwalb@ics.uci.edu
Dpt. of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine.
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets
From: radha@bmerh249.bnr.ca (Radha Valiveti)
Subject: Call for papers for Neural Nets conference in Oregon
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 15:50:14 GMT

A little while ago, I noticed the call for papers for a neural net
conference taking place in Oregon, USA sometime in May/June 1993. As
far as I recall, the deadline for submission of papers was Jan 15,
1993.  I have accidentally deleted the message that I had saved. Could
someone please mail it to me?

thanks,
radha


--
___________________________________________________________________________
Radhakrishna S Valiveti              Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Phone: (613) 765-2741     Fax: (613) 765-4777          e-mail: radha@bnr.ca
___________________________________________________________________________
From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.ai.fuzzy
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:08:02 GMT
Organization: CSE Dept., UC San Diego


In article <1992Nov10.100447@IASTATE.EDU>, chu_c@IASTATE.EDU (Chao-Hsien Chu)
echoing many others writes:
|> I vote for "Yes" to either comp.ai.fuzzy or 
|>  comp.fuzzy.


PLEASE DO NOT "VOTE" by posting!  If there is a request for discussion,
then discuss it, if there is a vote, MAIL your votes to whoever has
called for the vote.

Posting does no one any good.


-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.lang.lisp
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: ARS MAGNA Robot Simulator now available
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:09:54 GMT

engelson-sean@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) writes:
>			    Now Available
>			      ARS MAGNA
>		     The Abstract Robot Simulator
>
>... Lately attention has turned to planning for more realistic
>domains in which micro-world simplifying assumptions do not hold.
>simple enough to support controlled experimentation.
>ARS MAGNA's environment and robot models are based on
>current robotics research, so that the domain is reasonably realistic.
>At the same time, we abstracted away from many (though not all)
>real-world details of kinematics and motor control.  

      Despite being called a "robot simulator", this is a world modeller
without much reality.  It's a 2D grid world, and it is basically 
predicate-oriented,
not geometry-oriented.  The robot is modelled as a point with "sensors",
"effectors", and "internal carrying capacity", in a world with "walls"
and "things".  You code a planning program in "nisp" (a LISP dialect) 
which does such things as calling "hand-grasp-desig", commanding a
designated hand to grasp an object.  This succeeds or fails, depending
on the contents of nearby cells, and sometimes fails randomly, so the
planner has to be able to recover from errors.  That's the lowest level
of detail supported.  No kinematics, no dynamics, no gravity, no inertia,
no friction, etc.  


					John Nagle
From: asa@vall.dsv.su.se (]sa Rudstr|m)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: 2nd Call for Papers: SCAI-93
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:39:55 GMT
Organization: University of Stockholm, Sweden


Second Call for Papers - SCAI-93

Fourth Scandinavian Conference on AI 
Stockholm, Sweden, May 4-7 1993


THE CONFERENCE

The biennial Scandinavian Conference on AI is the Scandinavian forum for
scientific exchange and presentation of AI research. The aim of the
conference is to cover all aspects of AI research, including non-symbolic
methods, and to bring together basic research and applied research. The
technical programme will include paper and poster presentations, invited
talks, panels and tutorials. We particularily welcome contributions from 
the Baltic states.

The fourth SCAI is hosted by the Swedish AI Society and will take place in
the science park Electrum situated in the northern suburbs of Stockholm.


DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION: December 15, 1992.


Papers must be received by the SCAI-93 secretariat before December 15,
1992. Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by February 1,
1993. Final camera-ready papers must be received by March 10, 1993.

SUBMISSION OF PAPERS

Authors are requested to submit to the SCAI-93 secretariat, 5 copies of
papers written in English in hardcopy format (electronic and fax
submissions will not be accepted). Submitted papers should be unpublished,
original work. Papers should be between 2500 and 5500 words, printed on A4
or 8.5x11" sized paper, double-spaced, in letter quality print and with
12 point type.

Each copy of the paper should include a separate title page, containing the
title, full names, postal adresses, phone numbers and email addresses of all
authors, an abstract of 100-200 words and an indication whether a paper or 
poster presentation is preferred.

PROGRAMME CO-CHAIRS

Erik Sandewall				Carl Gustaf Jansson
Linkoping University			KTH and Stockholm University

PROGRAMME STRUCTURE

Tuesday, May 4:				Wednesday-Thursday, May 5-7:

Tutorials (in parallell with the	Invited talks, panels, paper 
Swedish AI Society's annual meeting)	and poster presentations

SCAI-93 SECRETARIAT

All correspondence should be directed to

SCAI 93
Department of Computer and		Phone:+46-8-161606
Systems Sciences			Fax: +46-8-7039025
Stockholm University/KTH		scai93@dsv.su.se
Aasa Rudstrom					 	      
Electrum 230
S-16440 Kista, Sweden
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: colby@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Kenneth Colby)
Subject: Re: Loebner Turing test for Human like conversation
Keywords: Loebner, turing, natural language
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:52:30 GMT




Robert's from Australia has it right about formalisms.  Growing up in,
and now saddled by, the Euclidean tradition that all problems can be
solved with 5 axioms (the fifth turned about to be incorrect), many
people in AI try to force emperical problems into a formal framework
that doesnt get anywhere.

Little progress has been made in AI with the "natural language problem"
because of reliance on Aristotelian-Chomskyian categories, English
grammers that are really Latin grammers, predicate calculus, theorem
proving and other deductive dead ends.

Language is more like a biological organism - "a summing up of many
contrivances, each useful to the possessor" - C. Darwin.

Ken and Pete Colby
M.A.I.W.

Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: leoso@cs.arizona.edu (Leo WaiChung So)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: TOP? Graduate Programs in AI
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:47:39 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
  
  What about Machine Translation of Natural Language? Thanks.


  leo.
--
  Leo WaiChung So               Internet : leoso@cs.arizona.edu
  Department of Computer Science    UUCP : uunet!arizona!leoso
  University of Arizona           Bitnet : leoso%cs.arizona.edu@arizona.bitnet
  Tucson, AZ 85721, USA     Keep in Mind : "Look ahead, plan ahead, go ahead."
Newsgroups: comp.ai
From: labenrsa@ICIL64.CILEA.IT
Subject: Re: SOAR??
Organization: CILEA - v R. Sanzio 4 - Segrate - ITALY
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:05:31 GMT
Reply-To: labenrsa@ICIL64.CILEA.IT
Distribution: comp

In article <NDIAYE.92Nov5151156@sol.cs.uni-sb.de>, ndiaye@sol.cs.uni-sb.de (Alassane Ndiaye) writes:
>Hello Netters,
>Can someone tell me what SOAR does mean.
>(Search Oriented Architecture, ???????)
>

Hi,
I think that SOAR means: S earch  O riented  AR chitecture.

		Marco Albertelli

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e-mail: albertelli%laben@icil64.cilea.it

post: Marco Albertelli
      LABEN, Research and Strategic Development
      20090 Vimodrone (Milan) ITALY, S.S.Padana Superiore 290

phone: +39-2-25075337

fax: +39-2-2505515


Xref: sparky comp.ai:4242 fj.ai:803
From: okumura@okilab.oki.co.jp (Akira OKUMURA)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,fj.ai
Subject: Re: KLAUS
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:08:37 GMT
Reply-To: okumura@okilab.oki.co.jp
Organization: Oki electric industry co.,ltd., Tokyo, Japan
In-reply-to: okumura@okilab.oki.co.jp's message of 5 Nov 92 03:02:50 GMT

In article <92Nov5120250@okilab.oki.co.jp> okumura@okilab.oki.co.jp (Akira OKUMURA) writes:
 >Please let me know about the recent status of KLAUS project or any
 >articles on it.  I have only one in the book "Machine Learning", 1983
 >from Tioga.

Somebody told me there was no further activity after that.
Thanks.
--
Akira OKUMURA, Tokyo, JAPAN
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.lang.lisp
From: schwarts@cps.msu.edu (Steven Eric Schwartz)
Subject: Re: ARS MAGNA Robot Simulator now available
Originator: schwarts@atlantic.cps.msu.edu
Reply-To: schwarts@cps.msu.edu (Steven Eric Schwartz)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 05:10:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.010954.9656@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>engelson-sean@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) writes:
>>			    Now Available
>>			      ARS MAGNA
>>		     The Abstract Robot Simulator
>>
>>... Lately attention has turned to planning for more realistic
>>domains in which micro-world simplifying assumptions do not hold.
>>simple enough to support controlled experimentation.
>>ARS MAGNA's environment and robot models are based on
>>current robotics research, so that the domain is reasonably realistic.
>>At the same time, we abstracted away from many (though not all)
>>real-world details of kinematics and motor control.  
>
>      Despite being called a "robot simulator", this is a world modeller
>without much reality.  It's a 2D grid world, and it is basically 
>predicate-oriented,
>not geometry-oriented.  The robot is modelled as a point with "sensors",
>"effectors", and "internal carrying capacity", in a world with "walls"
>and "things".  You code a planning program in "nisp" (a LISP dialect) 
>which does such things as calling "hand-grasp-desig", commanding a
>designated hand to grasp an object.  This succeeds or fails, depending
>on the contents of nearby cells, and sometimes fails randomly, so the
>planner has to be able to recover from errors.  That's the lowest level
>of detail supported.  No kinematics, no dynamics, no gravity, no inertia,
>no friction, etc.  
>
>
>					John Nagle


Is there a version of this code available that is non-Windowed, i.e. semi-
portable to other systems?

-- 
Steven Eric Schwartz            "It's not safe out here. It's wonderous, with
(schwarts@cps.msu.edu)           treasures to satiate desires both subtle and
125 East Wilson Hall, MSU        gross.  But it's not for the timid."
East Lansing, Michigan  48825                           - Q, "Q Who"
From: raja@microsoft.com (Rajasekhar Abburi)
Subject: Re: Loebner Turing test for Human like conversation
Date: 09 Nov 92 20:03:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Keywords: Loebner, turing, natural language
Summary: Loebner prize

In article <1992Nov5.212849.7986@cs.ucla.edu>, colby@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Kenneth Colby) writes:
> In the summer issue of AI Magazine, there is an article on the Loebner
> Prize competition for most human-like computer conversationalist, wriiten by
> Robert Epstein, director Cambridge Center for Behaviorial Studies.  
> 
> The competition involves Turing-like tests in using ordinary natural language
> in a specific domain.  Daniel C. Dennett is chairman of the prize committee.
> The next competition will be held 12/15/92.  
> 
> Does anyone have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions about the article 
> or the competition.
> 
> Ken Colby - Malibu Artifactual Intelligence Works



I think that Robert Epstein's article is fairly objective and well written.
The fundamental approach to the Loebner prize contest is resonable. 
However the technical difficulties changed the course of the 1991 contest. 
With the two failed terminals, the originally set balance was lost (with 
6 computer programs and only 2 human "confederates"). The 2 human confeds 
may not have been as representative of the diverse spectrum of humanness 
as the originally planned 4 would have been.

Most importantly, I believe that one common topic should be selected for
all the contestants. If each contestant has a separate topic, they get 
differing latitudes for incomprehension and incorrect responses.
Whimsical conversation, (the topic of the winning program, PC Therapist III),
for example, can get away with random responses more easily than
the other programs could.  

I think that Loebner prize contest is a good incentive for 
non-mainstream AI  programmers.

Raja