Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

Machine learning

Preface 1. Decision-Theoretic Foundations 1.1 Game Theory, Rationality, and Intelligence 1.2 Basic Concepts of Decision Theory 1.3 Axioms 1.4 The Expected-Utility Maximization Theorem 1.5 Equivalent Representations 1.6 Bayesian Conditional-Probability Systems 1.7 Limitations of the Bayesian Model 1.8 Domination 1.9 Proofs of the Domination Theorems Exercises 2. Basic Models 2.1 Games in Extensive Form 2.2 Strategic Form and the Normal Representation 2.3 Equivalence of Strategic-Form Games 2.4 Reduced Normal Representations 2.5 Elimination of Dominated Strategies 2.6 Multiagent Representations 2.7 Common Knowledge 2.8 Bayesian Games 2.9 Modeling Games with Incomplete Information Exercises 3. Equilibria of Strategic-Form Games 3.1 Domination and Ratonalizability 3.2 Nash Equilibrium 3.3 Computing Nash Equilibria 3.4 Significance of Nash Equilibria 3.5 The Focal-Point Effect 3.6 The Decision-Analytic Approach to Games 3.7 Evolution. Resistance. and Risk Dominance 3.8 Two-Person Zero-Sum Games 3.9 Bayesian Equilibria 3.10 Purification of Randomized Strategies in Equilibria 3.11 Auctions 3.12 Proof of Existence of Equilibrium 3.13 Infinite Strategy Sets Exercises 4. Sequential Equilibria of Extensive-Form Games 4.1 Mixed Strategies and Behavioral Strategies 4.2 Equilibria in Behavioral Strategies 4.3 Sequential Rationality at Information States with Positive Probability 4.4 Consistent Beliefs and Sequential Rationality at All Information States 4.5 Computing Sequential Equilibria 4.6 Subgame-Perfect Equilibria 4.7 Games with Perfect Information 4.8 Adding Chance Events with Small Probability 4.9 Forward Induction 4.10 Voting and Binary Agendas 4.11 Technical Proofs Exercises 5. Refinements of Equilibrium in Strategic Form 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Perfect Equilibria 5.3 Existence of Perfect and Sequential Equilibria 5.4 Proper Equilibria 5.5 Persistent Equilibria 5.6 Stable Sets 01 Equilibria 5.7 Generic Properties 5.8 Conclusions Exercises 6. Games with Communication 6.1 Contracts and Correlated Strategies 6.2 Correlated Equilibria 6.3 Bayesian Games with Communication 6.4 Bayesian Collective-Choice Problems and Bayesian Bargaining Problems 6.5 Trading Problems with Linear Utility 6.6 General Participation Constraints for Bayesian Games with Contracts 6.7 Sender-Receiver Games 6.8 Acceptable and Predominant Correlated Equilibria 6.9 Communication in Extensive-Form and Multistage Games Exercises Bibliographic Note 7. Repeated Games 7.1 The Repeated Prisoners Dilemma 7.2 A General Model of Repeated Garnet 7.3 Stationary Equilibria of Repeated Games with Complete State Information and Discounting 7.4 Repeated Games with Standard Information: Examples 7.5 General Feasibility Theorems for Standard Repeated Games 7.6 Finitely Repeated Games and the Role of Initial Doubt 7.7 Imperfect Observability of Moves 7.8 Repeated Wines in Large Decentralized Groups 7.9 Repeated Games with Incomplete Information 7.10 Continuous Time 7.11 Evolutionary Simulation of Repeated Games Exercises 8. Bargaining and Cooperation in Two-Person Games 8.1 Noncooperative Foundations of Cooperative Game Theory 8.2 Two-Person Bargaining Problems and the Nash Bargaining Solution 8.3 Interpersonal Comparisons of Weighted Utility 8.4 Transferable Utility 8.5 Rational Threats 8.6 Other Bargaining Solutions 8.7 An Alternating-Offer Bargaining Game 8.8 An Alternating-Offer Game with Incomplete Information 8.9 A Discrete Alternating-Offer Game 8.10 Renegotiation Exercises 9. Coalitions in Cooperative Games 9.1 Introduction to Coalitional Analysis 9.2 Characteristic Functions with Transferable Utility 9.3 The Core 9.4 The Shapkey Value 9.5 Values with Cooperation Structures 9.6 Other Solution Concepts 9.7 Colational Games with Nontransferable Utility 9.8 Cores without Transferable Utility 9.9 Values without Transferable Utility Exercises Bibliographic Note 10. Cooperation under Uncertainty 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Concepts of Efficiency 10.3 An Example 10.4 Ex Post Inefficiency and Subsequent Oilers 10.5 Computing Incentive-Efficient Mechanisms 10.6 Inscrutability and Durability 10.7 Mechanism Selection by an Informed Principal 10.8 Neutral Bargaining Solutions 10.9 Dynamic Matching Processes with Incomplete Information Exercises Bibliography Index

博弈论 : 矛盾冲突分析 = Game theory : analysis of conflict

This paper gives an overview of the development of the field of Knowledge Engineering over the last 15 years. We discuss the paradigm shift from a transfer view to a modeling view and describe two approaches which considerably shaped research in Knowledge Engineering: Role-limiting Methods and Generic Tasks. To illustrate various concepts and methods which evolved in recent years we describe three modeling frameworks: CommonKADS, MIKE and PROTEGE-II. This description is supplemented by discussing some important methodological developments in more detail: specification languages for knowledge-based systems, problem-solving methods and ontologies. We conclude by outlining the relationship of Knowledge Engineering to Software Engineering, Information Integration and Knowledge Management.

/pdf/knowledge-engineering-principles-and-methods-6do1hbj75r.pdf

Knowledge engineering: principles and methods

Well adapted to the loosely coupled nature of distributed interaction in large-scale applications, the publish/subscribe communication paradigm has recently received increasing attention. With systems based on the publish/subscribe interaction scheme, subscribers register their interest in an event, or a pattern of events, and are subsequently asynchronously notified of events generated by publishers. Many variants of the paradigm have recently been proposed, each variant being specifically adapted to some given application or network model. This paper factors out the common denominator underlying these variants: full decoupling of the communicating entities in time, space, and synchronization. We use these three decoupling dimensions to better identify commonalities and divergences with traditional interaction paradigms. The many variations on the theme of publish/subscribe are classified and synthesized. In particular, their respective benefits and shortcomings are discussed both in terms of interfaces and implementations.

/pdf/the-many-faces-of-publish-subscribe-59ahrjbweq.pdf

The many faces of publish/subscribe

The term ‘‘Internet-of-Things’’ is used as an umbrella keyword for covering various aspects related to the extension of the Internet and the Web into the physical realm, by means of the widespread deployment of spatially distributed devices with embedded identification, sensing and/or actuation capabilities. Internet-of-Things envisions a future in which digital and physical entities can be linked, by means of appropriate information and communication technologies, to enable a whole new class of applications and services. In this article, we present a survey of technologies, applications and research challenges for Internetof-Things.

/pdf/internet-of-things-vision-applications-and-research-4xfstaiv80.pdf

Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges

Current methods for designing cyber-physical systems lack a unifying framework due to the heterogeneous nature of the constituent models and their respective analysis and verification tools. There is a need for a formal representation of the relationships between the different models. Our approach is to define these relationships at the architectural level, associating with each model a particular view of the overall system base architecture. This architectural framework captures critical structural and semantic information without including all the details of the various modeling formalisms. This paper introduces the use of logical constraints over parameters in the architectural views to represent the conditions under which the specifications verified for each model are true and imply the system-level specification. Interdependencies and connections between the constraints in the architectural views are managed in the base architecture using first-order logic of real arithmetic to ensure consistency and correct reasoning. The approach is illustrated in the context of heterogeneous verification of a leader-follower vehicle scenario.

/pdf/using-parameters-in-architectural-views-to-support-373vbb4qu3.pdf

Using parameters in architectural views to support heterogeneous design and verification

A critical issue in the design of a professional software engineering degree program is the way in which formal methods are integrated into the curriculum. The approach taken by most programs is to teach formal techniques for software development in a separate course on formal methods. In this paper we detail some of the problems with that approach and describe an alternative in which formal methods are integrated across the curriculum. We illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of this alternative in terms of our experience of using it in the Master of Software Engineering Program at Carnegie Mellon University.

Making formal methods education effective for professional software engineers

One common approach to self-adaptive systems is to incorporate a control layer that monitors a system, supervisorily detects problems, and applies adaptation strategies to fix problems or improve system behavior. While such approaches have been found to be quite effective, they are typically limited to carrying out a single adaptation at a time, delaying other adaptations until the current one finishes. This in turn leads to a problem in which a time-critical adaptation may have to wait for an existing long-running adaptation to complete, thereby missing a window of opportunity for that adaptation. In this paper we improve on existing practice through an approach in which adaptations can be preempted to allow for other time-critical adaptations to be scheduled. Scheduling is based on an algorithm that maximizes time-related utility for a set of concurrently executing adaptations.

/pdf/improving-architecture-based-self-adaptation-using-1apk3ayobw.pdf

Improving architecture-based self-adaptation using preemption

Modern cyber-physical systems (e.g., robotics systems) are typically composed of physical and software components, the characteristics of which are likely to change over time. Assumptions about parts of the system made at design time may not hold at run time, especially when a system is deployed for long periods (e.g., over decades). Self-adaptation is designed to find reconfigurations of systems to handle such run-time inconsistencies. Planners can be used to find and enact optimal reconfigurations in such an evolving context. However, for systems that are highly configurable, such planning becomes intractable due to the size of the adaptation space. To overcome this challenge, in this paper we explore an approach that (a) uses machine learning to find Pareto-optimal configurations without needing to explore every configuration and (b) restricts the search space to such configurations to make planning tractable. We explore this in the context of robot missions that need to consider task timeliness and energy consumption. An independent evaluation shows that our approach results in high-quality adaptation plans in uncertain and adversarial environments.

Machine Learning Meets Quantitative Planning: Enabling Self-Adaptation in Autonomous Robots

This paper presents Kubow, an extensible architecture-based self-adaptation service for cloud native applications. Kubow itself was implemented by customizing and extending the Rainbow self-adaptation framework with support for Docker containers and Kubernetes. The paper highlights Kubow's architecture and main design decisions, and illustrates its use and configuration through a simple example. An accompanying demo video is available at the project's web site: https://ppgia-unifor.github.io/kubow/.

David Garlan

Papers

Using parameters in architectural views to support heterogeneous design and verification

Making formal methods education effective for professional software engineers

Improving architecture-based self-adaptation using preemption

Machine Learning Meets Quantitative Planning: Enabling Self-Adaptation in Autonomous Robots

Kubow: an architecture-based self-adaptation service for cloud native applications