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

Software-intensive systems are increasingly used to support tasks that are typically characterized by high degrees of uncertainty. The modeling notations employed to design, verify, and operate such systems have increasingly started to capture different types of uncertainty, so that they can be explicitly considered when systems are developed and deployed. While these modeling paradigms consider different sources of uncertainty individually, these sources are rarely independent, and their interactions affect the achievement of system goals in subtle and often unpredictable ways. This vision paper describes the problem of uncertainty interaction in software-intensive systems, illustrating it on examples from relevant application domains. We then identify key open challenges and define desiderata that future modeling notations and model-driven engineering research should consider to address these challenges.

Addressing the uncertainty interaction problem in software-intensive systems: challenges and desiderata

Many applications have taken advantage of cloud provided autonomic capabilities, commonly auto-scaling, to harness easily available compute capacity to maintain performance against defined quality objectives. This has caused the management complexity of enterprise applications to increase. It is now common for an application to be a collection of autonomic sub-systems. Combining individual autonomic systems to create an application can lead to behaviors that negatively impact the global aggregate utility of the application and in some cases can be conflicting and self-destructive. Commonly, human administrators address these behaviors as part of a design time analysis of the situation or a run time mitigation of the undesired effects. However, the task of controlling and mitigating undesirable behaviors is complex and error prone. To handle the complexity of managing a collection of autonomic systems we have previously proposed an automated approach to the creation of a higher level autonomic management system, referred to as a Meta-Manager. In this paper, we improve upon prior work with a more streamlined and understandable formal representation of the approach, expand its capabilities to include global knowledge, and test its potential applicability and effectiveness by managing the complexity of a collection of autonomic systems in a case study of a major outage suffered by the Google Cloud Platform.

Automated Management of Collections of Autonomic Systems

Robot systems are growing in importance and complexity. Ecosystems for robot software, such as the Robot Operating System (ROS), provide libraries of reusable software components that can be configured and composed into larger systems. To support compositionality, ROS uses late binding and architecture configuration via “launch files” that describe how to initialize the components in a system. However, late binding often leads to systems failing silently due to misconfiguration, for example by misrouting or dropping messages entirely.In this paper we present ROSDiscover, which statically recovers the run-time architecture of ROS systems to find such architecture misconfiguration bugs. First, ROSDiscover constructs component level architectural models (ports, parameters) from source code. Second, architecture configuration files are analyzed to compose the system from these component models and derive the connections in the system. Finally, the reconstructed architecture is checked against architectural rules described in first-order logic to identify potential misconfigurations.We present an evaluation of ROSDiscover on real world, off-the-shelf robotic systems, measuring the accuracy, effectiveness, and practicality of our approach. To that end, we collected the first data set of architecture configuration bugs in ROS from popular open-source systems and measure how effective our approach is for detecting configuration bugs in that set.

ROSDiscover: Statically Detecting Run-Time Architecture Misconfigurations in Robotics Systems

Current software development environments tend to lie at opposite ends of a spectrum: at one extreme are specialized application generators; at the other are general-purpose programming environments. The former provide strong support for system development and reuse, but are costly to build and available only for limited domains. The latter provide weak support, but are generally available and universally applicable. We describe a technique for automating the production of application-specific environments that lie between these two extremes. The key idea is that these environments can be derived from general-purpose programming environments by a process of structured transformation. We describe a tool for performing these transformations. It provides a set of formal operators for specializing a description of a general-purpose environment; as operators are applied, the system semi-automatically builds a set of transformation rules used to translate application-specific programs into those of the original general-purpose environment. The output of the tool is an application-specific environment together with a program transformer that provides execution semantics for programs written in that environment.

ASCENT: Application-Specific Environment Transformer

Modern frameworks are required to be extendable as well as secure. However, these two qualities are often at odds. In this poster we describe an approach that uses a combination of static analysis and run-time management, based on software architecture models, that can improve security while maintaining framework extendability.

David Garlan

Papers

Addressing the uncertainty interaction problem in software-intensive systems: challenges and desiderata

Automated Management of Collections of Autonomic Systems

ROSDiscover: Statically Detecting Run-Time Architecture Misconfigurations in Robotics Systems

ASCENT: Application-Specific Environment Transformer

An architecture style for Android security analysis: poster