@article{chirkova_doyle_reutter_2021, title={Ensuring Data Readiness for Quality Requirements with Help from Procedure Reuse}, volume={13}, ISSN={["1936-1955"]}, DOI={10.1145/3428154}, abstractNote={Assessing and improving the quality of data are fundamental challenges in Big-Data applications. These challenges have given rise to numerous solutions targeting transformation, integration, and cleaning of data. However, while schema design, data cleaning, and data migration are nowadays reasonably well understood in isolation, not much attention has been given to the interplay between standalone tools in these areas. In this article, we focus on the problem of determining whether the available data-transforming procedures can be used together to bring about the desired quality characteristics of the data in business or analytics processes. For example, to help an organization avoid building a data-quality solution from scratch when facing a new analytics task, we ask whether the data quality can be improved by reusing the tools that are already available, and if so, which tools to apply, and in which order, all without presuming knowledge of the internals of the tools, which may be external or proprietary.}, number={3}, journal={ACM JOURNAL OF DATA AND INFORMATION QUALITY}, author={Chirkova, Rada and Doyle, Jon and Reutter, Juan}, year={2021}, month={Sep} } @inproceedings{jiang_chirkova_doyle_rosenthal_2018, title={An Expressive, Flexible and Uniform Logical Formalism for Attribute-based Access Control}, url={https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/liminjia/events/fcs2018/papers/s21.pdf}, booktitle={Workshop on Foundations of Computer Security (FCS 2018)}, author={Jiang, Jiaming and Chirkova, Rada and Doyle, Jon and Rosenthal, Arnon}, editor={Jia, Limin and Morisset, CharlesEditors}, year={2018}, month={Jul} } @article{jiang_chirkova_doyle_rosenthal_2018, title={Poster: Towards Greater Expressiveness, Flexibility, and Uniformity in Access Control}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85049303993&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1145/3205977.3208950}, abstractNote={Attribute-based access control (ABAC) is a general access control model that subsumes numerous earlier access control models. Its increasing popularity stems from the intuitive generic structure of granting permissions based on application and domain attributes of users, subjects, objects, and other entities in the system. Multiple formal and informal languages have been developed to express policies in terms of such attributes. The utility of ABAC policy languages is potentially undermined without a properly formalized underlying model. The high-level structure in a majority of ABAC models consists of sets of tokens and sets of sets, expressions that demand that the reader unpack multiple levels of sets and tokens to determine what things mean. The resulting reduced readability potentially endangers correct expression, reduces maintainability, and impedes validation. These problems could be magnified in models that employ nonuniform representations of actions and their governing policies. We propose to avoid these magnified problems by recasting the high-level structure of ABAC models in a logical formalism that treats all actions (by users and others) uniformly and that keeps existing policy languages in place by interpreting their attributes in terms of the restructured model. In comparison to existing ABAC models, use of a logical language for model formalization, including hierarchies of types of entities and attributes, promises improved expressiveness in specifying the relationships between and requirements on application and domain attributes. A logical modeling language also potentially improves flexibility in representing relationships as attributes to support some widely used policy languages. Consistency and intelligibility are improved by using uniform means for representing different types of controlled actions---such as regular access control actions, administrative actions, and user logins---and their governing policies. Logical languages also provide a well-defined denotational semantics supported by numerous formal inference and verification tools.}, journal={SACMAT'18: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 23RD ACM SYMPOSIUM ON ACCESS CONTROL MODELS & TECHNOLOGIES}, author={Jiang, Jiaming and Chirkova, Rada and Doyle, Jon and Rosenthal, Arnon}, year={2018}, pages={217–219} } @inproceedings{chirkova_doyle_reutter_2018, title={The data readiness problem for relational databases}, volume={2100}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85048411064&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={CEUR Workshop Proceedings}, author={Chirkova, R. and Doyle, J. and Reutter, J.L.}, year={2018} } @book{argenta_doyle_2017, title={Discrete multi-agent plan recognition: Recognizing teams, goals, and plans from action sequences}, volume={10162 LNAI}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85012952399&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-319-53354-4_12}, abstractNote={Multi-agent Plan Recognition (MPAR) infers teams and their goals from observed actions of individual agents. The complexity of creating a priori plan libraries significantly increases to account for diversity of action sequences different team structures may exhibit. A key challenge in MPAR is effectively pruning the joint search space of agent to team compositions and goal to team assignments. Here, we describe discrete Multi-agent Plan Recognition as Planning (MAPRAP), which extends Ramirez and Geffner’s Plan Recognition as Planning (PRAP) approach to multi-agent domains. Instead of a plan library, MAPRAP uses the planning domain and synthesizes plans to achieve hypothesized goals with additional constraints for suspected team composition and previous observations. By comparing costs of plans, MAPRAP identifies feasible interpretations that explain the teams and plans observed. We establish a performance profile for discrete MAPRAP in a multi-agent blocks-world domain. We evaluated precision, accuracy, and recall after each observation. We compare two pruning strategies to dampen the explosion of hypotheses tested. Aggressive pruning averages 1.05 plans synthesized per goal per time step for multi-agent scenarios vice 0.56 for single agent scenarios.}, journal={Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)}, author={Argenta, C. and Doyle, J.}, year={2017}, pages={212–228} } @inproceedings{argenta_doyle_2017, title={Probabilistic multi-agent plan recognition as planning (P-Maprap): Recognizing teams, goals, and plans from action sequences}, volume={2}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85068733514&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={ICAART 2017 - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence}, author={Argenta, C. and Doyle, J.}, year={2017}, pages={575–582} } @inproceedings{ajmeri_jiang_chirkova_doyle_singh_2016, title={Coco: Runtime reasoning about conflicting commitments}, volume={2016-January}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85006107006&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence}, author={Ajmeri, N. and Jiang, J. and Chirkova, R. and Doyle, J. and Singh, M.P.}, year={2016}, pages={17–23} } @article{beam_ghosh_doyle_2016, title={Fast Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Using GPU Computing}, volume={25}, ISSN={["1537-2715"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84971468820&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1080/10618600.2015.1035724}, abstractNote={In recent years, the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm has been found to work more efficiently compared to other popular Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods (such as random walk Metropolis–Hastings) in generating samples from a high-dimensional probability distribution. HMC has proven more efficient in terms of mixing rates and effective sample size than previous MCMC techniques, but still may not be sufficiently fast for particularly large problems. The use of GPUs promises to push HMC even further greatly increasing the utility of the algorithm. By expressing the computationally intensive portions of HMC (the evaluations of the probability kernel and its gradient) in terms of linear or element-wise operations, HMC can be made highly amenable to the use of graphics processing units (GPUs). A multinomial regression example demonstrates the promise of GPU-based HMC sampling. Using GPU-based memory objects to perform the entire HMC simulation, most of the latency penalties associated with transferring data from main to GPU memory can be avoided. Thus, the proposed computational framework may appear conceptually very simple, but has the potential to be applied to a wide class of hierarchical models relying on HMC sampling. Models whose posterior density and corresponding gradients can be reduced to linear or element-wise operations are amenable to significant speed ups through the use of GPUs. Analyses of datasets that were previously intractable for fully Bayesian approaches due to the prohibitively high computational cost are now feasible using the proposed framework.}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND GRAPHICAL STATISTICS}, author={Beam, Andrew L. and Ghosh, Sujit K. and Doyle, Jon}, year={2016}, month={Jun}, pages={536–548} } @inproceedings{argenta_doyle_2016, title={Multi-agent plan recognition as planning (MAPRAP)}, volume={2}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84969262826&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={ICAART 2016 - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence}, author={Argenta, C. and Doyle, J.}, year={2016}, pages={141–148} } @inproceedings{lauren_pigg_2016, title={Toward entrepreneurial pedagogies: rethinking professional networking as knowledge making}, DOI={10.1109/ipcc.2016.7740535}, abstractNote={This paper offers initial suggestions for teaching professional social networking as a technical communication practice. Our guidelines build from recent qualitative research analyzing the networking relationships, practices, and technologies that support technical communication entrepreneurship. This research demonstrated how technical communication entrepreneurs perceive networking to be steeped in learning and sharing knowledge across professional and personal social fields. Based on what was learned from participants, we offer a model for and guidelines toward teaching networking as connected to knowledge sharing and building. This paper next offers an example assignment sequence from a master's level technical communication course focused on online information design. Through research and theory building, we suggest that instructors and students should understand professional social networking as a multilayered practice of learning and sharing collective knowledge.}, booktitle={2016 ieee international professional communication conference (ipcc)}, author={Lauren, B. and Pigg, S.}, year={2016} } @article{beam_motsinger-reif_doyle_2015, title={An investigation of gene-gene interactions in dose-response studies with Bayesian nonparametrics}, volume={8}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84924134920&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1186/s13040-015-0039-3}, abstractNote={Best practice for statistical methodology in cell-based dose-response studies has yet to be established. We examine the ability of MANOVA to detect trait-associated genetic loci in the presence of gene-gene interactions. We present a novel Bayesian nonparametric method designed to detect such interactions. MANOVA and the Bayesian nonparametric approach show good ability to detect trait-associated genetic variants under various possible genetic models. It is shown through several sets of analyses that this may be due to marginal effects being present, even if the underlying genetic model does not explicitly contain them. Understanding how genetic interactions affect drug response continues to be a critical goal. MANOVA and the novel Bayesian framework present a trade-off between computational complexity and model flexibility.}, number={1}, journal={BioData Mining}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Beam, Andrew L and Motsinger-Reif, Alison A and Doyle, Jon}, year={2015}, month={Feb} } @inbook{alborzi_chirkova_doyle_fathi_2015, title={Determining Query Readiness for Structured Data}, volume={9263}, ISBN={9783319227283 9783319227290}, ISSN={0302-9743 1611-3349}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22729-0_1}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-319-22729-0_1}, abstractNote={The outcomes and quality of organizational decisions depend on the characteristics of the data available for making the decisions and on the value of the data in the decision-making process. Toward enabling management of these aspects of data in analytics, we introduce and investigate Data Readiness Level (DRL), a quantitative measure of the value of a piece of data at a given point in a processing flow. Our DRL proposal is a multidimensional measure that takes into account the relevance, completeness, and utility of data with respect to a given analysis task. This study provides a formalization of DRL in a structured-data scenario, and illustrates how knowledge of rules and facts, both within and outside the given data, can be used to identify those transformations of the data that improve its DRL.}, booktitle={Big Data Analytics and Knowledge Discovery}, publisher={Springer International Publishing}, author={Alborzi, Farid and Chirkova, Rada and Doyle, Jon and Fathi, Yahya}, year={2015}, pages={3–14} } @inproceedings{alborzi_chirkova_doyle_fathi_2015, title={Determining query readiness for structured data}, volume={9263}, booktitle={Big data analytics and knowledge discovery}, author={Alborzi, F. and Chirkova, R. and Doyle, J. and Fathi, Y.}, year={2015}, pages={3–14} } @inproceedings{du_narron_ajmeri_berglund_doyle_singh_2015, place={United States}, title={Understanding sanction under variable observability in a secure, collaborative environment}, volume={21-22-April-2015}, ISBN={9781450333764}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2746194.2746206}, DOI={10.1145/2746194.2746206}, abstractNote={Norms are a promising basis for governance in secure, collaborative environments---systems in which multiple principals interact. Yet, many aspects of norm-governance remain poorly understood, inhibiting adoption in real-life collaborative systems. This work focuses on the combined effects of sanction and the observability of the sanctioner in a secure, collaborative environment. We present CARLOS, a multiagent simulation of graduate students performing research within a university lab setting, to explore these phenomena. The simulation consists of agents maintaining "compliance" to enforced security norms while remaining "motivated" as researchers. We hypothesize that (1) delayed observability of the environment would lead to greater motivation of agents to complete research tasks than immediate observability and (2) sanctioning a group for a violation would lead to greater compliance to security norms than sanctioning an individual. We find that only the latter hypothesis is supported. Group sanction is an interesting topic for future research regarding a means for norm-governance which yields significant compliance with enforced security policy at a lower cost. Our ultimate contribution is to apply social simulation as a way to explore environmental properties and policies to evaluate key transitions in outcome, as a basis for guiding further and more demanding empirical research.}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 2015 Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security - HotSoS '15}, publisher={ACM Press}, author={Du, Hongying and Narron, Bennett and Ajmeri, Nirav and Berglund, Emily and Doyle, Jon and Singh, Munindar P.}, year={2015}, pages={12:1–12:10} } @article{beam_motsinger-reif_doyle_2014, title={Bayesian neural networks for detecting epistasis in genetic association studies}, volume={15}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84923857700&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1186/s12859-014-0368-0}, abstractNote={Discovering causal genetic variants from large genetic association studies poses many difficult challenges. Assessing which genetic markers are involved in determining trait status is a computationally demanding task, especially in the presence of gene-gene interactions. A non-parametric Bayesian approach in the form of a Bayesian neural network is proposed for use in analyzing genetic association studies. Demonstrations on synthetic and real data reveal they are able to efficiently and accurately determine which variants are involved in determining case-control status. Using graphics processing units (GPUs) the time needed to build these models is decreased by several orders of magnitude. In comparison with commonly used approaches for detecting genetic interactions, Bayesian neural networks perform very well across a broad spectrum of possible genetic relationships while having the computational efficiency needed to handle large datasets.}, number={1}, journal={BMC Bioinformatics}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Beam, Andrew L and Motsinger-Reif, Alison and Doyle, Jon}, year={2014}, pages={368} } @article{doyle_2013, title={Mechanics and Mental Change}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-642-34997-3_7}, journal={Evolution of Semantic Systems}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2013}, pages={127–150} } @inbook{doyle_2013, title={Mechanics and mental change}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84948111228&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-642-34997-3}, booktitle={Evolution of Semantic Systems}, author={Doyle, J.}, year={2013}, pages={127–150} } @article{wicker_doyle_2012, title={Leveraging Multiple Mechanisms for Information Propagation}, volume={7068 LNAI}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84855957338&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-642-27216-5_1}, abstractNote={We address the problem of how social influence affects the spread of information across a population. Existing work has approached such problems through the use of simple models of influence that utilize a single influence mechanism for inducing changes in a population. We have developed a new model of social influence that recognizes and leverages multiple influence mechanisms and multiple types of relations among individuals. Our model increases expressivity and extensibility over that of existing related models and facilitates analysis of influence effects in a multitude of social contexts (e.g., marketing, trends, decision support).}, journal={Advanced Agent Technology}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Wicker, Andrew W. and Doyle, Jon}, year={2012}, pages={1–2} } @inproceedings{wicker_doyle_2012, title={Leveraging multiple mechanisms for information propagation}, volume={7068}, booktitle={Advanced agent technology}, author={Wicker, A. W. and Doyle, J.}, year={2012}, pages={1–2} } @inproceedings{gopalan_antón_doyle_2012, title={UCON LEGAL}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84857745115&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1145/2110363.2110391}, abstractNote={Developing an access control system that satisfies the requirements expressed in regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), can help ensure regulatory compliance in software systems. A usage control model that specifies the rules governing information access and usage, as expressed in law, is an important step towards achieving such compliance. Software systems that handle health records must comply with regulations in the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules. Herein, we analyze the HIPAA Privacy Rule using a grounded theory methodology coupled with an inquiry driven approach to determine the components that must be supported by a usage control model to achieve regulatory-compliant health records usage. In this paper, we propose a usage control model, UCONLEGAL, which extends UCONABC with components to model purposes, cross-references, exceptions, conditions, and logs. We also employ UCONLEGAL to show how to express the access and usage rules we identified in the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Our analysis yielded seven types of conditions specific to HIPAA that we include in UCONLEGAL; these conditions were previously unsupported by existing usage control models.}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT symposium on International health informatics - IHI '12}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Gopalan, Ramya and Antón, Annie and Doyle, Jon}, year={2012}, pages={227–236} } @article{mcgeachie_doyle_2011, title={The local geometry of multiattribute tradeoff preferences}, volume={175}, ISSN={["1872-7921"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79954686976&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.artint.2010.11.014}, abstractNote={Existing representations for multiattribute ceteris paribus preference statements have provided useful treatments and clear semantics for qualitative comparisons, but have not provided similarly clear representations or semantics for comparisons involving quantitative tradeoffs. We use directional derivatives and other concepts from elementary differential geometry to interpret conditional multiattribute ceteris paribus preference comparisons that state bounds on quantitative tradeoff ratios. This semantics extends the familiar economic notion of marginal rate of substitution to multiple continuous or discrete attributes. The same geometric concepts also provide means for interpreting statements about the relative importance of different attributes.}, number={7-8}, journal={ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={McGeachie, Michael and Doyle, Jon}, year={2011}, month={May}, pages={1122–1152} } @inproceedings{doyle_2008, title={Cognitive mechanics: Natural intelligence beyond biology and computation}, volume={FS-08-06}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-77952157352&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={AAAI Fall Symposium - Technical Report}, author={Doyle, J.}, year={2008}, pages={35–37} } @inproceedings{wicker_doyle_2008, title={Comparing preferences expressed by cp-networks (extended abstract)}, volume={WS-08-09}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-66149165890&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={AAAI Workshop - Technical Report}, author={Wicker, A.W. and Doyle, J.}, year={2008}, pages={128–133} } @article{breaux_anton_doyle_2008, title={Semantic Parameterization: A Process for Modeling Domain Descriptions}, volume={18}, ISSN={["1557-7392"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-56149121201&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1145/1416563.1416565}, abstractNote={ Software engineers must systematically account for the broad scope of environmental behavior, including nonfunctional requirements, intended to coordinate the actions of stakeholders and software systems. The Inquiry Cycle Model (ICM) provides engineers with a strategy to acquire and refine these requirements by having domain experts answer six questions: who, what, where, when, how, and why. Goal-based requirements engineering has led to the formalization of requirements to answer the ICM questions about when , how , and why goals are achieved, maintained, or avoided. In this article, we present a systematic process called Semantic Parameterization for expressing natural language domain descriptions of goals as specifications in description logic. The formalization of goals in description logic allows engineers to automate inquiries using who , what , and where questions, completing the formalization of the ICM questions. The contributions of this approach include new theory to conceptually compare and disambiguate goal specifications that enables querying goals and organizing goals into specialization hierarchies. The artifacts in the process include a dictionary that aligns the domain lexicon with unique concepts, distinguishing between synonyms and polysemes, and several natural language patterns that aid engineers in mapping common domain descriptions to formal specifications. Semantic Parameterization has been empirically validated in three case studies on policy and regulatory descriptions that govern information systems in the finance and health-care domains. }, number={2}, journal={ACM TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING AND METHODOLOGY}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Breaux, Travis D. and Anton, Annie I. and Doyle, Jon}, year={2008}, month={Nov} } @inproceedings{doyle_goldsmith_junker_lang_2007, title={AAAI Workshop - Technical Report: Preface}, volume={WS-07-10}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-51849090045&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={AAAI Workshop - Technical Report}, author={Doyle, J. and Goldsmith, J. and Junker, U. and Lang, J.}, year={2007} } @article{anand_bahls_burghart_burstein_chen_collins_dietterich_doyle_drummond_elazmeh_et al._2007, title={AAAI-07 workshop reports}, volume={28}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-39049150323&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={4}, journal={AI Magazine}, author={Anand, S.S. and Bahls, D. and Burghart, C.R. and Burstein, M. and Chen, H. and Collins, J. and Dietterich, T. and Doyle, J. and Drummond, C. and Elazmeh, W. and et al.}, year={2007}, pages={119–128} } @inproceedings{wicker_doyle_2007, title={Interest-matching comparisons using CP-nets}, volume={2}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-36348991910&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence}, author={Wicker, A.W. and Doyle, J.}, year={2007}, pages={1914–1915} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Attitudes, outlook, and memory}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.012}, abstractNote={Many theories of psychological organization posit both long-term and short-term memories. The long-term memories serve as persistent (but not necessarily perfect) repositories of knowledge, skills, and other elements of human capital; the short-term memories serve to store the fleeting facts of present experience, which then either are discarded or incorporated into long-term memory.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={251–275} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Bibliography}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.023}, abstractNote={A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={429–442} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Dynamics}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.008}, abstractNote={A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={135–172} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Effectiveness}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.019}, abstractNote={As was noted earlier, the traditional conception of what we call mechanical computation or computation by machine relies on a purely kinematical conception of mechanics. It entirely omits any notion of force and focuses attention only on abstract states and motion between them. In this it follows a trend in mechanical formalism that moved away from considering forces and spatial motions to considering mainly Hamiltonian motion through abstract spaces, with no mention of either the central notion of force or the key notion of mass (cf. Hermann 1990, Sussman & Wisdom 2001).}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={392–398} } @book{doyle_2006, title={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, volume={9780521861977}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84930704080&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952}, abstractNote={This book deploys the mathematical axioms of modern rational mechanics to understand minds as mechanical systems that exhibit actual, not metaphorical, forces, inertia, and motion. Using precise mental models developed in artificial intelligence the author analyzes motivation, attention, reasoning, learning, and communication in mechanical terms. These analyses provide psychology and economics with new characterizations of bounded rationality; provide mechanics with new types of materials exhibiting the constitutive kinematic and dynamic properties characteristic of different kinds of minds; and provide philosophy with a rigorous theory of hybrid systems combining discrete and continuous mechanical quantities. The resulting mechanical reintegration of the physical sciences that characterize human bodies and the mental sciences that characterize human minds opens traditional philosophical and modern computational questions to new paths of technical analysis.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds: The Mechanical Foundations of Psychology and Economics}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={1–453} } @book{doyle_2006, title={Extending mechanics to minds: The mechanical foundations of psychology and economics}, ISBN={0521861977}, publisher={Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press}, author={Doyle, J.}, year={2006} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Finitism}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.020}, abstractNote={Many should find familiar the notions of materialism and reductionism, and should recognize that these doctrines enjoy large numbers of adherents. Fewer need have heard of finitism because of its presently smaller number of adherents, though many should recognize some of its aspects in current scientific and technological trends. This chapter tries to collect and address some of these issues as they relate to a broadened mechanics.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={399–404} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Kinematics}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.007}, abstractNote={A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={88–134} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Learning}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.015}, abstractNote={While reasoning can produce temporary changes of location, learning produces persistent changes of mass or configuration. When someone temporarily responds to instruction or threat but then reverts to an old behavior when the teacher or threat departs, we say that person did not learn anything. Mechanically, we would identify such response with an elastic material that rebounds on relief from compression, but such elastic behavior does not produce the permanent changes we associate with thought. True learning, involving change of mass or deformation of spatial configuration, constitutes plastic changes in the character of the material, including dynamogenetic changes that affect material response. In this chapter, let us consider learning involving changes of habits represented in the mass and changes of configuration represented in position. We distinguish types of reasoning and learning both by the types of changes involved and by the types of forces producing the change.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={326–345} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Materialism}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.017}, abstractNote={Science and natural philosophy largely abandoned ideas about parallel worlds of mind and matter in the years following Descartes and his dualistic philosophy. By the twentieth century, most of science exhibited an unhesitant materialistic metaphysics. The present investigation occasions an opportunity to reexamine ideas about materialism.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={373–378} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Mechanical intelligence}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.003}, abstractNote={A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={3–9} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Mental varieties}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.010}, abstractNote={Understanding psychology and economics in mechanical terms requires looking at specific concepts of psychology and economics from the mechanical point of view. If we look to the literature, however, we find that the cognitive sciences study a wide range of possible or hypothesized psychological organizations as explanations of human thought. For example, the ideally rational agents of economics have one kind of mind, a kind very different from almost all known human minds. But even among humans, individual minds have very different characters, exhibiting different levels of intelligence at different tasks, different temperaments, different degrees of adaptability, and so on. The well-known Myers–Briggs test (Myers & Myers 1980), to give another example, sorts minds into sixteen well-populated classes. These classes correspond to recognizable and common types of personal character, types that give some insight and enable reasonable, though not perfect, predictions of individual behavior.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={225–240} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Mind and body}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.011}, abstractNote={A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={241–250} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Outline of the book}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.002}, abstractNote={A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={xix-xxii} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Preface}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.001}, abstractNote={This book uses concepts from mechanics to help the reader understand and formalize theories of mind, with special concentration on understanding and formalizing notions of rationality and bounded rationality that underlie many parts of psychology and economics. The book provides evidence that mechanical notions including force and inertia play roles as important in understanding psychology and economics as they play in physics. Using this evidence, it attempts to clarify the nature of the concepts of motivation, effort, and habit in psychology and the ideas of rigidity, adaptation, and bounded rationality in economics. The investigation takes a mathematical approach. The mechanical interpretations developed to characterize mechanical reasoning and rationality also speak to other questions about mind, notably questions of dualism and materialism.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={xi-xviii} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Rationality}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.014}, abstractNote={The preceding treatment of reasoning indicates how we can interpret psychological rationality in terms of mechanical processes. Let us now look at the ways in which mechanical concepts enter into characterizing forms of economic rationality.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={295–325} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Reasoning}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.013}, abstractNote={A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={276–294} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Reductionism}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.018}, abstractNote={A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={379–391} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Reflections}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.021}, abstractNote={Space and Time! now I see it is true, what I guess'd at,What I guess'd when I loafed on the grass,What I guess'd while I lay alone on my bed,And again as I walk'd alone the beach under the paling stars of the morning.(Walt Whitman, Song of Myself)}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={407–424} } @article{doyle_2006, title={System of Notation}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.022}, abstractNote={A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={425–428} } @article{doyle_2006, title={The character of mechanical law}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.009}, abstractNote={The axioms on forces given in the previous chapter characterize the nature of inertial forces and the structure of systems of forces in isolation, but otherwise say nothing about how forces arise in the evolution of mechanical systems. Although the special laws of forces depend on the specific class of material involved, Noll states three additional general axioms concerning dynamogenesis that bear on the general character of mechanical forces.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={173–222} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Uncertainty}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.016}, abstractNote={The preceding development of mental mechanics does not require determinism of mechanical systems. It instead requires only that motion satisfy mechanical relationships independent of determinism requirements.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={346–370} } @article{doyle_2006, title={What is mechanics?}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.006}, abstractNote={The common picture of mechanics embodies many unfortunate misconceptions about the nature, scope, and structure of mechanics, with many people having the idea that mechanics consists of applying to physical systems the three axioms stated by Newton. Applying mechanics to psychology and economics requires a firmer theoretical basis than that provided by popular misconceptions. To proceed, we thus must confront and set aside mechanical misconceptions, lest the misconceptions prevent proper appreciation of the contribution mechanics makes to understanding the world. Accordingly, the present chapter examines the nature of mechanics at a high level, reconsidering the content and form of mechanical theories in light of the history of mechanical concepts and mathematical formalisms. This examination highlights the common misconceptions and how they divert one from the proper understanding needed for the following development.}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={71–87} } @article{doyle_2006, title={Why mechanics now?}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511546952.005}, abstractNote={Mechanics has enjoyed some four centuries of sustained development without producing results in psychology or economics. The mental sciences have enjoyed a couple centuries of sustained development without requiring mechanical intervention. To use the standard economic argument, if there was a connection worth pursuing, would not one have already been made?}, journal={Extending Mechanics to Minds}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={2006}, pages={47–68} } @article{junker_delgrande_doyle_rossi_schaub_2004, title={Computational intelligence: Preface}, volume={20}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-2442596050&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={2}, journal={Computational Intelligence}, author={Junker, U. and Delgrande, J. and Doyle, J. and Rossi, F. and Schaub, T.}, year={2004}, pages={109–110} } @article{doyle_2004, title={Prospects for preferences}, volume={20}, ISSN={["1467-8640"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-2442654406&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.0824-7935.2004.00233.x}, abstractNote={This article examines prospects for theories and methods of preferences, both in the specific sense of the preferences of the ideal rational agents considered in economics and decision theory and in the broader interplay between reasoning and rationality considered in philosophy, psychology, and artificial intelligence. Modern applications seek to employ preferences as means for specifying, designing, and controlling rational behaviors as well as descriptive means for understanding behaviors. We seek to understand the nature and representation of preferences by examining the roles, origins, meaning, structure, evolution, and application of preferences.}, number={2}, journal={COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Doyle, J}, year={2004}, month={May}, pages={111–136} } @article{mcgeachie_doyle_2004, title={Utility functions for ceteris paribus preferences}, volume={20}, ISSN={["1467-8640"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-2442539195&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.0824-7935.2004.00235.x}, abstractNote={ Ceteris paribus (all‐else equal) preference statements concisely represent preferences over outcomes or goals in a way natural to human thinking. Although deduction in a logic of such statements can compare the desirability of specific conditions or goals, many decision‐making methods require numerical measures of degrees of desirability. To permit ceteris paribus specifications of preferences while providing quantitative comparisons, we present an algorithm that compiles a set of qualitative ceteris paribus preferences into an ordinal utility function. Our algorithm is complete for a finite universe of binary features. Constructing the utility function can, in the worst case, take time exponential in the number of features, but common independence conditions reduce the computational burden. We present heuristics using utility independence and constraint‐based search to obtain efficient utility functions.}, number={2}, journal={COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={McGeachie, M and Doyle, J}, year={2004}, month={May}, pages={158–217} } @inproceedings{long_doyle_burke_szolovits_2003, title={Detection of intrusion across multiple sensors}, volume={5107}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0344082634&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1117/12.488478}, abstractNote={We have been developing an architecture for reasoning with multiple sensors distributed on a computer network, linking them with analysis modules and reasoning with the results to combine evidence of possible intrusion for display to the user. The architecture, called MAITA, consists of monitors distributed across machines and linked together under control of the user and supported by a monitor of monitors that manages the interaction among the monitors. This architecture enables the system to reason about evidence from multiple sensors. For example, a monitor can track FTP logs to detect password scans followed by successful uploads of data from foreign sites. At the same time it can monitor disk use and detect significant trends. Monitors can then combine the evidence in the sequence in which they occur and present evidence to the user that someone has successfully gained write access to the FTP site and is occupying significant disk space. This paper discusses the architecture enabling the creation, linking, and support of the monitors. The monitors may be running on the same or different machines and so appropriate communication links must be supported as well as regular status checks to ensure that monitors are still running. We will also discuss the construction of monitors for sensing the data, abstracting and characterizing data, synchronizing data from different sources, detecting patterns, and displaying the results.}, booktitle={System Diagnosis and Prognosis: Security and Condition Monitoring Issues III}, publisher={SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng}, author={Long, William J. and Doyle, Jon and Burke, Glenn and Szolovits, Peter}, editor={Willett, Peter K. and Kirubarajan, ThiagalingamEditors}, year={2003}, month={Aug}, pages={141–149} } @article{doyle_mcgeachie_2003, title={Exercising Qualitative Control in Autonomous Adaptive Survivable Systems}, DOI={10.1007/3-540-36554-0_12}, journal={Self-Adaptive Software: Applications}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Doyle, Jon and McGeachie, Michael}, year={2003}, pages={158–170} } @inbook{doyle_mcgeachie_2003, title={Exercising qualitative control in autonomous adaptive survivable systems}, volume={2614}, ISBN={3540007318}, booktitle={Self-adaptive software: Applications: Second International Workshop, IWSAS 2001, Balatonfu?red, Hungary, May 17-19, 2001: Revised papers}, publisher={Berlin; New York: Springer}, author={Doyle, J. and McGeachie, M.}, editor={R. Laddaga, P. Robertson and Shrobe, H.Editors}, year={2003}, pages={158–170} } @book{doyle_mcgeachie_2003, title={Exercising qualitative control in autonomous adaptive survivable systems}, volume={2614}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-35248852939&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, journal={Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)}, author={Doyle, J. and McGeachie, M.}, year={2003}, pages={158–170} } @inproceedings{mcgeachie_doyle_2002, title={Efficient utility functions for ceteris paribus preferences}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0036926279&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence}, author={McGeachie, M. and Doyle, J.}, year={2002}, pages={279–284} } @article{doyle_2002, title={What is Church's thesis? An outline}, volume={12}, ISSN={["0924-6495"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0036869514&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1023/A:1021126521437}, number={4}, journal={MINDS AND MACHINES}, author={Doyle, J}, year={2002}, month={Nov}, pages={519–520} } @inbook{shrobe_doyle_2001, title={Active trust management for autonomous adaptive survivable systems}, ISBN={3540416552}, booktitle={Self-adaptive software: First international workshop, IWSAS 2000, Oxford, UK, April 17-19, 2000: Revised papers}, publisher={Berlin; New York: Springer}, author={Shrobe, H. and Doyle, J.}, editor={P. Robertson, H. Shrobe and Laddaga, R.Editors}, year={2001} } @article{shrobe_doyle_2000, title={Active Trust Management for Autonomous Adaptive Survivable Systems (ATM’s for AAss’s)}, DOI={10.1007/3-540-44584-6_4}, abstractNote={The traditional approaches to building survivable systems assume a framework of absolute trust requiring a provably impenetrable and incorruptible Trusted Computing Base (TCB). Unfortunately, we don’t have TCB’s, and experience suggests that we never will. We must instead concentrate on software systems that can provide useful services even when computational resource are compromised. Such a system will 1) Estimate the degree to which a computational resources may be trusted using models of possible compromises. 2) Recognize that a resource is compromised by relying on a system for long term monitoring and analysis of the computational infrastructure. 3) Engage in self-monitoring, diagnosis and adaptation to best achieve its purposes within the available infrastructure. All this, in turn, depends on the ability of the application, monitoring, and control systems to engage in rational decision making about what resources they should use in order to achieve the best ratio of expected benefit to risk.}, journal={Self-Adaptive Software}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Shrobe, Howard and Doyle, Jon}, year={2000}, pages={40–49} } @article{doyle_thomason_1999, title={Background to qualitative decision theory}, volume={20}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0032641691&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={2}, journal={AI Magazine}, author={Doyle, J. and Thomason, R.H.}, year={1999}, pages={55–68} } @article{doyle_dean_1997, title={Strategic directions in artificial intelligence}, volume={18}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0031083786&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={1}, journal={AI Magazine}, author={Doyle, J. and Dean, T.}, year={1997}, pages={87–101} } @article{doyle_1996, title={Cleaving (unto) artificial intelligence}, volume={28}, DOI={10.1145/242224.242230}, number={4es}, journal={CSUR}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1996}, pages={4-es} } @article{wegner_doyle_1996, title={Editorial: Strategic directions in computing research}, volume={28}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84968612301&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1145/242223.242227}, abstractNote={Computing Surveys is commemorating the 50th anniversary of the ACM and of the computing discipline in two special issues. The March 1996 issue, on “Perspectives in Computer Science,” examined the status of the discipline, while the present issue looks to the future with a collection of reports on “Strategic Directions in Computing Research.” These reports evolved from a workshop, hosted by the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science in June 1996, at which 22 working groups consisting of more than 300 participants met to examine research directions. The preparation of reports in the subsequent months proved more time-consuming than expected, but 19 of the working groups completed their reports for publication in this issue. The reports collectively provide a remarkably deep, though incomplete, view of the field and its future challenges. We hope they will stimulate further efforts toward strategic understanding, and we offer the pages of Computing Surveys as a home for future strategic-directions reports. The September or December 1997 Surveys will contain a symposium on strategic directions in computing research that reacts to the articles in this issue. Readers interested in submitting short (1000-word) articles to such a symposium should so inform the editors ^csur@acm.org or pw@cs.brown.edu&. Over the past 30 years computers have become an increasingly important part of everyday life. The success of computer technology has inevitably altered the role of core research. The ACM has changed from a small society representing researchers to a large professional organization in which researchers comprise less than 20% of its members. The Communications of the ACM has changed its format from a scholarly journal to a magazine, while Computing Surveys, though preserving its scholarly character, is also changing to better serve the changed membership profile. The evolving role of computing in society affects the self-image of researchers as well as the research philosophies of funding agencies and governments. The report Computing the Future [Hartmanis and Lin 1992], which recognized the changing role of research in the discipline of computing, recommended balancing its first priority—sustaining core research—with an effort by researchers to broaden the field, so as to play a greater role in an expanding discipline and to enrich computing models through contact with applications. These recommendations engendered some controversy because they struck some researchers as favoring short-term over long-term research. Such fears of overemphasis on short-term results at the expense of long-term research are legitimate and need to be addressed. The reports in this issue balance the desire of researchers to undertake core research with the need to build bridges connecting theory and practice. The tension between supply-driven core research—focused on increasing understanding and exploring new possibilities—and demand-driven applications research—focused on solving external problems—is a permanent part of the strategic landscape. We hope that these reports help the computing community better to appreciate the scope and importance of research.}, number={4}, journal={CSUR}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Wegner, Peter and Doyle, Jon}, year={1996}, pages={565–574} } @article{doyle_dean_1996, title={Strategic directions in artificial intelligence}, volume={28}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0001020699&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1145/242223.242268}, abstractNote={■ This report, written for the general computing and scientific audience and for students and others interested in artificial intelligence, summarizes the major directions in artificial intelligence research, sets them in context relative to other areas of computing research, and gives a glimpse of the vision, depth, research partnerships, successes, and excitement of the field.}, number={4}, journal={CSUR}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Doyle, Jon and Dean, Thomas}, year={1996}, pages={653–670} } @inbook{doyle_1995, title={A truth maintenance system}, ISBN={0262621010}, booktitle={Computation and intelligence: Collected readings}, publisher={Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press}, author={Doyle, J.}, year={1995} } @article{doyle_1994, title={INFERENCE AND ACCEPTANCE: COMMENTS ON KYBURG'S “BELIEVING ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE”}, volume={10}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84990623086&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1467-8640.1994.tb00145.x}, abstractNote={In Kyburg (1993), Henry Kyburg describes the approach he intends to pursue in studying believing and reasoning-an approach based on the agent accepting conclusions on the basis of their probability relative to a body of background knowledge and evidence-and sketches some arguments for and against this approach in the course of describing his intent. My comments here relate to some of these arguments and other points raised in his text. Kyburg distinguishes between two views of belief and reasoning. One view hedges conclusions but posits sound grounding of these in knowledge and evidence, while the other view hedges the grounding relationship instead of (but perhaps in addition to) conclusions. He starts by observing that people tend to give answers in line with each of these views in different settings, but indulges the “human lust for uniformity and generality” by attempting to find a view that covers both rather than using each one where it seems most appropriate. His favored alternative (elaborated elsewhere) hedges inference steps rather than conclusions, but acknowledges the role of probability by making acceptance depend on probabilities of conclusions exceeding certain thresholds in certain probability measures. Although I sympathize with Kyburg’s view that a realistic theory of belief should give a large role to the idea of acceptance, I regard other elements of his approach with some suspicion. One qualm concerns his framework for using threshold probability levels to determine acceptance. Kyburg’s view of acceptance permits the threshold of acceptance to vary with the context, so that, for example, one might require a higher threshold while designing nuclear power plants or excising a brain tumor than while deciding which door to use when entering a building. But Kyburg’s examples all suggest that a single threshold suffices for each context. I find this implausible; different potential conclusions surely have different significances, which to my mind should influence the threshold needed for acceptance just as do differences in context. Perhaps Kyburg means for contexts to include the set of possible conclusions under discussion, but this did not seem to be his intent. Moreover, since the background knowledge and evidence also would appear to influence significance, they too might be necessary components of contexts if contexts determine thresholds. But in that case, the division of the attribution of belief into global threshold determination followed by individual acceptance or avoidance seems poorly motivated. To put this qualm in a more general perspective, I find the notion of thresholds uniform within contexts unappealing because I think acceptance should depend on the significance or importance of beliefs as well as probability (and possibly other factors). Put in the broadest terms, I think that to justify acceptance we should interpret it as the result of a rational decision to believe based, as usual, on the utilities of the consequences of the act or condition of believing and the probabilities of these different consequences. These utilities may reflect many different considerations, from computational or psychological costs “internal” to the agent to physical, monetary, societal, or other costs “external” to the agent. But whatever}, number={1}, journal={Computational Intelligence}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1994}, month={Feb}, pages={46–48} } @article{doyle_sandewall_torasso_1994, title={Preface}, DOI={10.1016/b978-1-4832-1452-8.50096-8}, journal={Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Doyle, Jon and Sandewall, Erik and Torasso, Pietro}, year={1994}, pages={ix} } @article{doyle_1994, title={Reasoned assumptions and rational psychology}, volume={20}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0028384993&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.3233/FI-1994-201232}, abstractNote={Logical epistemology unduly sways theories of thinking that formulate problems of nonmonotonic reasoning as issues of nondeductive operations on logically phrased beliefs, because the fundamental concepts underlying such reasoning have little to do with logic or belief. These formulations make the resulting theories inappropriately special and hide the characteristic structures of nonmonotonic reasoning amid many unrelated structures. We present a more direct mathematical development of nonmonotonic reasoning free of extraneous logical and epistemological assumptions, and argue that the insights gained in this way exemplify the benefits obtained by approaching psychology as a subject for mathematical investigation through the discipline of rational psychology.}, number={1-3}, journal={Fundamenta Informaticae}, author={Doyle, J.}, year={1994}, pages={35–73} } @article{sacks_doyle_1992, title={EPILEGOMENON}, volume={8}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84990600909&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1467-8640.1992.tb00369.x}, abstractNote={We are deeply indebted to the commentators for the hard work they have applied to responding to our paper. Neither their efforts nor our own in responding to their comments have been as enjoyable as one might wish. Our paper apparently persuaded some commentators that we hold positions that we thought we had explicitly denied, positions we denied for many of the same reasons as have the commentators. Though we expected disagreements, we were very surprised by some of the points actually taken to represent major controversies. We did not anticipate the variety of ways in which placing different emphases on our words yields unintended interpretations. We would have chosen different words in some cases, and probably a different organization for the text, had we foreseen these unintended interpretations. We regret that our paper is not the one we wish we had written, and regret that our tongue-in-cheek title may have given offense, for none was intended. To make amends, we will attempt in this afterword to express our intentions more clearly. Rather than attempt a comprehensive response to every point raised by the commentators, we restate our major points and principal arguments, saying exactly what we intended to say in our paper, but in a form we hope will be less conducive to misunderstanding.}, number={2}, journal={Computational Intell}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Sacks, Elisha P. and Doyle, Jon}, year={1992}, month={May}, pages={326–335} } @article{wellman_doyle_1992, title={Modular Utility Representation for Decision-Theoretic Planning}, DOI={10.1016/b978-0-08-049944-4.50033-1}, abstractNote={Specification of objectives constitutes a central issue in knowledge representation for planning. Decision-theoretic approaches require that representations of objectives possess a firm semantics in terms of utility functions, yet provide the flexible compositionality needed for practical preference modeling for planning systems. Modularity, or separability in specification, is the key representational feature enabling this flexibility. In the context of utility specification, modularity corresponds exactly to well-known independence concepts from multiattribute utility theory, and leads directly to approaches for composing separate preference specifications. Ultimately, we seek to use this utility-theoretic account to justify and improve existing mechanisms for specification of preference information, and to develop new representations exhibiting tractable specification and flexible composition of preference criteria.}, journal={Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Wellman, Michael P. and Doyle, Jon}, year={1992}, pages={236–242} } @inproceedings{wellman_doyle_1992, title={Modular utility representation for decision-theoretic planning}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0026963728&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, author={Wellman, Michael P. and Doyle, Jon}, year={1992}, pages={236–242} } @article{sacks_doyle_1992, title={PROLEGOMENA TO ANY FUTURE QUALITATIVE PHYSICS}, volume={8}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84990622760&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1467-8640.1992.tb00344.x}, abstractNote={We evaluate the success of the qualitative physics enterprise in automating expert reasoning about physical systems. The field has agreed, in essentials, upon a modeling language for dynamical systems, a representation for behavior, and an analysis method. The modeling language consists of generalized ordinary differential equations containing unspecified constants and monotonic functions; the behavioral representation decomposes the state space described by the equations into discrete cells; and the analysis method traces the transitory response using sign arithmetic and calculus. The field has developed several reasoners based on these choices over some 15 years. We demonstrate that these reasoners exhibit severe limitations in comparison with experts and can analyze only a handful of simple systems. We trace the limitations to inappropriate assumptions about expert needs and methods. Experts ordinarily seek to determine asymptotic behavior rather than transient response, and use extensive mathematical knowledge and numerical analysis to derive this information. Standard mathematics provides complete qualitative understanding of many systems, including those addressed so far in qualitative physics. Preliminary evidence suggests that expert knowledge and reasoning methods can be automated directly, without restriction to the accepted language, representation, and algorithm. We conclude that expert knowledge and methods provide the most promising basis for automating qualitative reasoning about physical systems.}, number={2}, journal={Computational Intell}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Sacks, Elisha P. and Doyle, Jon}, year={1992}, month={May}, pages={187–209} } @article{doyle_1992, title={RATIONALITY AND ITS ROLES IN REASONING}, volume={8}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84990627055&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1467-8640.1992.tb00371.x}, abstractNote={The economic theory of rationality promises to equal mathematical logic in its importance for the mechanization of reasoning. We survey the growing literature on how the basic notions of probability, utility, and rational choice, coupled with practical limitations on information and resources, influence the design and analysis of reasoning and representation systems.}, number={2}, journal={Computational Intell}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1992}, month={May}, pages={376–409} } @article{doyle_wellman_1992, title={Rational Self-Government and Universal Default Logics}, DOI={10.1016/b978-0-08-041050-0.50009-1}, abstractNote={Many partial and conflicting theories of nonlogical assumptions and default reasoning have been proposed. The theory of rational self-government suggests that there is no universal logic which subsumes these. We first show how default reasoning may be viewed as rational selection of assumptions according to preferences embodied in the different partial theories. We then adapt Arrow's social choice theorem to prove that every universal theory of default reasoning will violate at least one reasonable principle of rational reasoning.}, journal={Economics and Cognitive Science}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={DOYLE, Jon and WELLMAN, Michael P.}, year={1992}, pages={5–13} } @inbook{doyle_wellman_1992, title={Rational self-government and universal default logics}, ISBN={0080410502}, booktitle={Economics and cognitive science}, publisher={Oxford: Pergamon Press}, author={Doyle, J. and Wellman, M. P.}, editor={P. Bourgine and Walliser, B.Editors}, year={1992} } @article{doyle_1992, title={Reason maintenance and belief revision: Foundations versus coherence theories}, DOI={10.1017/cbo9780511526664.002}, abstractNote={Recent years have seen considerable work on two approaches to belief revision: the so-called foundations and coherence approaches. The foundations approach supposes that a rational agent derives its beliefs from justifications or reasons for these beliefs: in particular, that the agent holds some belief if and only if it possesses a satisfactory reason for that belief. According to the foundations approach, beliefs change as the agent adopts or abandons reasons. The coherence approach, in contrast, maintains that pedigrees do not matter for rational beliefs, but that the agent instead holds some belief just as long as it logically coheres with the agent's other beliefs. More specifically, the coherence approach supposes that revisions conform to minimal change principles and conserve as many beliefs as possible as specific beliefs are added or removed. The artificial intelligence notion of reason maintenance system (Doyle, 1979) (also called “truth maintenance system”) has been viewed as exemplifying the foundations approach, as it explicitly computes sets of beliefs from sets of recorded reasons. The so-called AGM theory of Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson (1985; 1988) exemplifies the coherence approach with its formal postulates characterizing conservative belief revision.}, journal={Belief Revision}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, editor={Gärdenfors, PeterEditor}, year={1992}, pages={29–51} } @article{doyle_shoham_wellman_1991, title={A logic of relative desire}, volume={542 LNAI Part F2}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85037066019&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/3-540-54563-8_65}, abstractNote={Although many have proposed formal characterizations of belief structures as bases for rational action, the problem of characterizing rational desires has attracted little attention. AI relies heavily on goal conditions interpreted (apparently) as absolute expressions of desirability, but these cannot express varying degrees of goal satisfaction or preferences among alternative goals. Our previous work provided a relative interpretation of goals as qualitative statements about preferability, all else equal. We extend that treatment to the comparison of arbitrary propositions, and develop a prepositional logic of relative desire suitable for formalizing properties of planning and problem-solving methods.}, journal={Methodologies for Intelligent Systems}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Doyle, Jon and Shoham, Yoav and Wellman, Michael P.}, year={1991}, pages={16–31} } @article{doyle_wellman_1991, title={Impediments to universal preference-based default theories}, volume={49}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0026157931&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/0004-3702(91)90007-7}, abstractNote={Research on nonmonotonic and default reasoning has identified several important criteria for preferring alternative default inferences. The theories of reasoning based on each of these criteria may uniformly be viewed as theories of rational inference, in which the reasoner selects maximally preferred states of belief. Though researchers have noted some cases of apparent conflict between the preferences supported by different theories, it has been hoped that these special theories of reasoning may be combined into a universal logic of nonmonotonic reasoning. We show that the different categories of preferences conflict more than has been realized, and adapt formal results from social choice theory to prove that every universal theory of default reasoning will violate at least one reasonable principle of rational reasoning. Our results can be interpreted as demonstrating that, within the preferential framework, we cannot expect much improvement on the rigid lexicographic priority mechanisms that have been proposed for conflict resolution.}, number={1-3}, journal={Artificial Intelligence}, author={Doyle, J. and Wellman, M.P.}, year={1991}, pages={97–128} } @article{doyle_sacks_1991, title={Markov analysis of qualitative dynamics}, volume={7}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84990604675&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1467-8640.1991.tb00330.x}, abstractNote={Common sense sometimes predicts events to be likely or unlikely rather than merely possible. We extend methods of qualitative reasoning to predict the relative likelihoods of possible qualitative behaviors by viewing the dynamics of a system as a Markov chain over its transition graph. This involves adding qualitative or quantitative estimates of transition probabilities to each of the transitions and applying the standard theory of Markov chains to distinguish persistent states from transient states and to calculate recurrence times, settling times, and probabilities for ending up in each state. Much of the analysis depends solely on qualitative estimates of transition probabilities, which follow directly from theoretical considerations and which lead to qualitative predictions about entire classes of systems. Quantitative estimates for specific systems are derived empirically and lead to qualitative and quantitative conclusions, most of which are insensitive to small perturbations in the estimated transition probabilities. The algorithms are straightforward and efficient.}, number={1}, journal={Computational Intell}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={DOYLE, JON and SACKS, ELISHA P.}, year={1991}, month={Feb}, pages={1–10} } @article{doyle_1991, title={Rational control of reasoning in artificial intelligence}, volume={465 LNAI}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0346356539&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/bfb0018415}, abstractNote={In contrast to the idealized rationality formalized in decision theory, artificial intelligence studies agents of limited cognitive resources and abilities. These limitations require the agent to economize on its memory usage and reasoning effort, and to be able to deliberate and act in spite of incomplete and inconsistent beliefs and preferences. We discuss some of the means by which artificial reasoners tolerate and even exploit these limitations in carrying out basic cognitive tasks, focusing on the underlying notions of progressive and conservative reasoning and constitutional and constructive representation. We show how these means may all be viewed as species of rationally guided or controlled reasoning, or more generally, as forms of rational self-government.}, journal={The Logic of Theory Change}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1991}, pages={19–48} } @article{doyle_patil_1991, title={Two theses of knowledge representation: Language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services}, volume={48}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0026137239&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/0004-3702(91)90029-j}, abstractNote={Levesque and Brachman argue that in order to provide timely and correct responses in the most critical applications, general-purpose knowledge representation systems should restrict their languages by omitting constructs which require nonpolynomial worst-case response times for sound and complete classification. They also separate terminological and assertional knowledge, and restrict classification to purely terminological information. We demonstrate that restricting the terminological language and classifier in these ways limits these “general-purpose” facilities so severely that they are no longer generally applicable. We argue that logical soundness, completeness, and worst-case complexity are inadequate measures for evaluating the utility of representation services, and that this evaluation should employ the broader notions of utility and rationality found in decision theory. We suggest that general-purpose representation services should provide fully expressive languages, classification over relevant contingent information, “approximate” forms of classification involving defaults, and rational management of inference tools.}, number={3}, journal={Artificial Intelligence}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Doyle, Jon and Patil, Ramesh S.}, year={1991}, month={Apr}, pages={261–297} } @article{doyle_1990, title={Book review: Philosophical Logic and Artificial Intelligence. Edited by Richmond H. Thomason (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989)}, volume={2}, DOI={10.1145/122388.1062340}, abstractNote={ This book represents a welcome departure from the past. Many readers in AI avoid looking at books on philosophy and artificial intelligence, at least after seeing one or two of the genre. The reason for this disinterest is aptly captured by Thomason in his introduction to the present volume, which expands on a special issue of the Journal of Philosophical Logic published in 1988. }, number={1}, journal={SIGART Bull.}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1990}, month={Nov}, pages={77–78} } @article{doyle_1990, title={Perceptive questions about computation and cognition}, volume={13}, DOI={10.1017/s0140525x00080754}, abstractNote={An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.}, number={04}, journal={Behav Brain Sci}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1990}, pages={661} } @article{doyle_1989, title={Constructive belief and rational representation}, volume={5}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84990602501&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1467-8640.1989.tb00311.x}, abstractNote={It is commonplace in artificial intelligence to divide an agent's explicit beliefs into two parts: the beliefs explicitly represented or manifest in memory, and the implicitly represented or constructive beliefs that are repeatedly reconstructed when needed rather than memorized. Many theories of knowledge view the relation between manifest and constructive beliefs as a logical relation, with the manifest beliefs representing the constructive beliefs through a logic of belief. This view, however, limits the ability of a theory to treat incomplete or inconsistent sets of beliefs in useful ways. We argue that a more illuminating view is that belief is the result of rational representation. In this theory, the agent obtains its constructive beliefs by using its manifest beliefs and preferences to rationally (in the sense of decision theory) choose the most useful conclusions indicated by the manifest beliefs.}, number={1}, journal={Computational Intell}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1989}, month={Jan}, pages={1–11} } @article{doyle_1987, title={Admissible State Semantics for Representational Systems}, DOI={10.1007/978-1-4612-4792-0_8}, abstractNote={Several authors have proposed specifying semantics for representational systems by translating them into logic. Unfortunately, such translations often introduce unnecessary detail and complexity. We indicate how many kinds of informal semantics can be transformed directly into formal semantics of no greater complexity. The key to avoiding the difficulties of logical translations is to recognize the difference between internal and external meanings.}, journal={The Knowledge Frontier}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1987}, pages={174–186} } @article{doyle_1987, title={Logic, rationality, and rational psychology}, volume={3}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84990610033&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1467-8640.1987.tb00190.x}, abstractNote={junctive theorems, with disjuncts from the various fixed points. This focus on theoremhood misses the mark. Each fixed point of a theory represents a set of formulas which satisfy the axiom set, and thus each fixed point has sign$cance. Each fixed point should be interpreted as a particular way of viewing the axioms and facts in the knowledge base and thus has significance in its own right. Consider qualitative reasoning as an example. Many qualitative reasoning systems exploit nonmonotonic reasoning. As qualitative reasoning is ambiguous, it often produces multiple analyses for how a device functions. Each fixed point of the underlying nonmonotonic logic corresponds to a particular possible qualitative functioning of the device. Therefore the fixed points have explicit significance. If some possible device behaviors are not described by some fixed point, then the axiom set is considered buggy. If some fixed point fails to correspond to a physically realizable behavior, we search for additional axioms that eliminate it. Another common use of nonmonotonic inference is diagnosis systems. A diagnostic task can be formulated using nonmonotonic (or default) rules. For each device component we make the assumption that unless there is evidence to the contrary, it must be functioning correctly. The fixed points (or extensions) of a theory based on this kind of formulation corresponds directly to the possible ways the device can fail (Reiter 1987). In summary, McDermott’s critique of nonmonotonic logic is myopic. Nonmonotonic inference already plays a major role in many A1 systems. In these systems you can certainly find out the relevant conclusions and you definitely want to know them. While it may be the case that nonmonotonic inference does not help the logicist position, McDermott has not made this case.}, number={1}, journal={Computational Intell}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1987}, month={Feb}, pages={175–176} } @article{doyle_1985, title={Circumscription and implicit definability}, volume={1}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0022279687&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/bf00244277}, abstractNote={We explore some connections between the technique of circumscription in artificial intelligence and the notion of implicit definition in mathematical logic. Implicit definition can be taken as the informal intent, but not necessarily the formal result, of circumscription. This raises some questions for logical theory and suggests some implications for artificial intelligence practice. The principal implication is that when circumscription ‘works’ its conclusions can be explicitly described.}, number={4}, journal={J Autom Reasoning}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1985}, pages={391–405} } @article{doyle_1985, title={Expert Systems and the “Myth” of Symbolic Reasoning}, volume={SE-11}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0022132767&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1109/TSE.1985.231886}, abstractNote={Elements of the artificial intelligence approach to expert systems offer great productivity advantages over traditional approaches to application systems development, even though the end result may be a program employing no AI techniques. These productivity advantages are the hidden truths behind the "myth" that symbolic reasoning programs are better than ordinary ones.}, number={11}, journal={IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering}, author={Doyle, J.}, year={1985}, pages={1386–1390} } @article{doyle_1983, title={Admissible State Semantics for Representational Systems}, volume={16}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0020833068&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1109/MC.1983.1654209}, abstractNote={Several authors have proposed specifying semantics for representational systems by translating them into logic. Unfortunately, such translations often introduce unnecessary detail and complexity. We indicate how many kinds of informal semantics can be transformed directly into formal semantics of no greater complexity. The key to avoiding the difficulties of logical translations is to recognize the difference between internal and external meanings.}, number={10}, journal={Computer}, author={Doyle, J.}, year={1983}, pages={119–123} } @inproceedings{doyle_1983, title={INS AND OUTS OF REASON MAINTENANCE.}, volume={1}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0020909766&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1983}, pages={349–351} } @inproceedings{doyle_1983, title={SOCIETY OF MIND - MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES, REASONED ASSUMPTIONS, AND VIRTUAL COPIES.}, volume={1}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0020892425&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1983}, pages={309–314} } @article{doyle_1981, title={A Truth Maintenance System**This research was conducted at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for the Laboratory's artificial intelligence research is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense under Office of Naval Research contract number N00014-75-C-0643, and in part by NSF grant MCS77-04828.}, DOI={10.1016/b978-0-934613-03-3.50039-8}, abstractNote={Abstract : To choose their actions, reasoning programs must be able to make assumptions and subsequently revise their beliefs when discoveries contradict these assumtions. The Truth Maintenance System (TMS) is a problem solver subsystem for performing these functions by recording and maintaining the reasons for program beliefs. Such recorded reasons are useful in constructing explanations for program actions and in guiding the course of action of a problem solver. This paper describes (1) the representations and structure of the TMS, (2) the mechanisms used to revise the current set of beliefs, (3) how dependency-directed backtracking changes the current set of assumptions, (4) techniques for summarizing explanations of beliefs, (5) how to organize problem solvers into 'dialectically arguing' modules, (6) how to revise models of the belief systems of others, and (7) methods for embedding control structures in patterns of assumptions. We stress the need of problem solvers to choose between alternate systems of beliefs, and outline a mechanism by which a problem solver can employ rules guiding choices of what to believe, what to want, and what to do. (Author)}, journal={Readings in Artificial Intelligence}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1981}, pages={496–516} } @article{doyle_1981, title={A model for deliberation, action, and introspection}, volume={1}, DOI={10.1145/1056748.1056749}, abstractNote={This thesis investigates the problem of controlling or directing the reasoning and actions of a computer program. The basic approach explored is to view reasoning as a species of action, so that a program might apply its reasoning powers to the task of deciding what inferences to make as well as to deciding what other actions to take. A design for the architecture of reasoning programs is proposed. This architecture involves self-consciousness, intentional actions, deliberate adaptations, and a form of decision-making based on dialectical argumentation. A program based on this architecture inspects itself, describes aspects of itself to itself, and uses this self-reference and these self-descriptions in making decisions and taking actions. The program's mental life includes awareness of its own concepts, beliefs, desires, intentions, inferences, actions, and skills. All of these are represented by self-descriptions in a single sort of language, so that the program has access to all of these aspects of itself, and can reason about them in the same terms.}, number={75}, journal={SIGART Bull.}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1981}, month={Jan}, pages={10–10} } @article{doyle_london_1980, title={A selected descriptor-indexed bibliography to the literature on belief revision}, volume={4}, DOI={10.1145/1056441.1056442}, abstractNote={ This article presents an overview of research in an area loosely called belief revision. Belief revision concentrates on the issue of revising systems of beliefs to reflect perceived changes in the environment or acquisition of new information. In addition, belief revision research includes the study of methods for representing models of environments as collections of beliefs and the development of formal theories of belief. The bulk of the article consists of a descriptor-indexed bibliography of research addressing these topics. Our intention is that this bibliography serve both to introduce the interested researcher to this literature, and to capture the current state of the field. Towards this purpose, we begin with an overview of belief revision research. }, number={71}, journal={SIGART Bull.}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Doyle, Jon and London, Philip}, year={1980}, month={Apr}, pages={7–22} } @article{mcdermott_doyle_1980, title={Non-monotonic logic I}, volume={13}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-49149141138&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/0004-3702(80)90012-0}, abstractNote={‘Non-monotonic’ logical systems are logics in which the introduction of new axioms can invalidate old theorems. Such logics are very important in modeling the beliefs of active processes which, acting in the presence of incomplete information, must make and subsequently revise assumptions in light of new observations. We present the motivation and history of such logics. We develop model and proof theories, a proof procedure, and applications for one non-monotonic logic. In particular, we prove the completeness of the non-monotonic predicate calculus and the decidability of the non-monotonic sentential calculus. We also discuss characteristic properties of this logic and its relationship to stronger logics, logics of incomplete information, and truth maintenance systems.}, number={1-2}, journal={Artificial Intelligence}, author={McDermott, D. and Doyle, J.}, year={1980}, pages={41–72} } @article{doyle_1979, title={A truth maintenance system}, volume={12}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0018544688&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/0004-3702(79)90008-0}, abstractNote={To choose their actions, reasoning programs must be able to make assumptions and subsequently revise their beliefs when discoveries contradict these assumptions. The Truth Maintenance System (TMS) is a problem solver subsystem for performing these functions by recording and maintaining the reasons for program beliefs. Such recorded reasons are useful in constructing explanations of program actions and in guiding the course of action of a problem solver. This paper describes (1) the representations and structure of the tms, (2) the mechanisms used to revise the current set of beliefs, (3) how dependency-directed backtracking changes the current set of assumptions, (4) techniques for summarizing explanations of beliefs, (5) how to organize problem solvers into “dialectically arguing” modules, (6) how to revise models of the belief systems of others, and (7) methods for embedding control structures in patterns of assumptions. We stress the need of problem solvers to choose between alternative systems of beliefs, and outline a mechanism by which a problem solver can employ rules guiding choices of what to believe, what to want, and what to do.}, number={3}, journal={Artificial Intelligence}, author={Doyle, J.}, year={1979}, pages={231–272} } @article{kleer_doyle_steele_sussman_1979, title={EXPLICIT CONTROL OF REASONING.}, volume={1}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0018585420&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, journal={Energy Technology Review}, author={Kleer, Johan and Doyle, Jon and Steele, Guy L. and Sussman, Gerald J.}, year={1979}, pages={93–116} } @article{doyle_1979, title={GLIMPSE OF TRUTH MAINTENANCE.}, volume={1}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0018586473&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, journal={Energy Technology Review}, author={Doyle, Jon}, year={1979}, pages={117–135} } @article{kleer_doyle_steele_sussman_1977, title={AMORD explicit control of reasoning}, volume={12}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84976775577&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1145/872734.806940}, abstractNote={The construction of expert problem-solving systems requires the development of techniques for using modular representations of knowledge without encountering combinatorial explosions in the solution effort. This report describes an approach to dealing with this problem based on making some knowledge which is usually implicitly part of an expert problem solver explicit, thus allowing this knowledge about control to be manipulated and reasoned about. The basic components of this approach involve using explicit representations of the control structure of the problem solver, and linking this and other knowledge manipulated by the expert by means of explicit data dependencies.}, number={8}, journal={SIGPLAN Not.}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Kleer, Johan and Doyle, Jon and Steele, Guy L. and Sussman, Gerald Jay}, year={1977}, month={Aug}, pages={116–125} } @article{kleer_doyle_steele_sussman_1977, title={AMORD explicit control of reasoning}, volume={8}, DOI={10.1145/872736.806940}, abstractNote={The construction of expert problem-solving systems requires the development of techniques for using modular representations of knowledge without encountering combinatorial explosions in the solution effort. This report describes an approach to dealing with this problem based on making some knowledge which is usually implicitly part of an expert problem solver explicit, thus allowing this knowledge about control to be manipulated and reasoned about. The basic components of this approach involve using explicit representations of the control structure of the problem solver, and linking this and other knowledge manipulated by the expert by means of explicit data dependencies.}, number={64}, journal={SIGART Bull.}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Kleer, Johan and Doyle, Jon and Steele, Guy L. and Sussman, Gerald Jay}, year={1977}, month={Aug}, pages={116–125} } @inproceedings{kleer_doyle_steele_sussman_1977, title={AMORD explicit control of reasoning}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85023336384&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1145/800228.806940}, abstractNote={The construction of expert problem-solving systems requires the development of techniques for using modular representations of knowledge without encountering combinatorial explosions in the solution effort. This report describes an approach to dealing with this problem based on making some knowledge which is usually implicitly part of an expert problem solver explicit, thus allowing this knowledge about control to be manipulated and reasoned about. The basic components of this approach involve using explicit representations of the control structure of the problem solver, and linking this and other knowledge manipulated by the expert by means of explicit data dependencies.}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 1977 symposium on Artificial intelligence and programming languages -}, publisher={Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)}, author={Kleer, Johan and Doyle, Jon and Steele, Guy L. and Sussman, Gerald Jay}, year={1977}, pages={116–125} } @article{doyle_rivest_1976, title={Linear expected time of a simple union-find algorithm}, volume={5}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0017019338&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/0020-0190(76)90061-2}, number={5}, journal={Information Processing Letters}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Doyle, Jon and Rivest, Ronald L.}, year={1976}, month={Nov}, pages={146–148} }