Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
STUDY
OF
ARTIFICIAL INTELLEGENCE IN
THE FIELD OF HEALTH CARE
&
MEDICINE
SUBMITTED
TO
SIES COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
BY
NAME- ABDHINI BISWAS
PGDM PHARMA 2016-2018
ROLL- 01
Artificial intelligence
The study of mechanical or "formal" reasoning began with philosophers and mathematicians in antiquity.
The study of mathematical logic led directly to Alan Turing's theory of computation, which suggested that a
machine, by shuffling symbols as simple as "0" and "1", could simulate any conceivable act of mathematical
deduction. This insight, that digital computers can simulate any process of formal reasoning, is known as the
Church–Turing thesis. Along with concurrent discoveries in neurology, information theory and cybernetics,
this led researchers to consider the possibility of building an electronic brain. The first work that is now
generally recognized as AI was McCullouch and Pitts' 1943 formal design for Turing-complete "artificial
neurons".
The field of AI research was born at a workshop at Dartmouth College in 1956. Attendees Allen Newell
(CMU), Herbert Simon (CMU), John McCarthy (MIT), Marvin Minsky (MIT) and Arthur Samuel (IBM) became
the founders and leaders of AI research.
Artificial intelligence (AI, also machine intelligence, MI) is intelligence displayed by machines, in contrast
with the natural intelligence (NI) displayed by humans and other animals. In computer science AI research is
defined as the study of "intelligent agents": any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that
maximize its chance of success at some goal. Colloquially, the term "artificial intelligence" is applied when a
machine mimics "cognitive" functions that humans associate with other human minds, such as "learning"
and "problem solving".
Artificial intelligence was founded as an academic discipline in 1956, and in the years since has experienced
several waves of optimism, followed by disappointment and the loss of funding (known as an "AI winter"),
followed by new approaches, success and renewed funding. For most of its history, AI research has been
divided into subfields that often fail to communicate with each other. These sub-fields are based on
technical considerations, such as particular goals (e.g. "robotics" or "machine learning"), the use of particular
tools ("logic" or "neural networks"), or deep philosophical differences. Subfields have also been based on
social factors (particular institutions or the work of particular researchers).
The traditional problems (or goals) of AI research include reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, natural
language processing, perception and the ability to move and manipulate objects. General intelligence is
among the field's long-term goals. Approaches include statistical methods, computational intelligence, and
traditional symbolic AI. Many tools are used in AI, including versions of search and mathematical
optimization, neural networks and methods based on statistics, probability and economics. The AI field
draws upon computer science, mathematics, psychology, linguistics, philosophy, neuroscience, artificial
psychology and many others.
The field was founded on the claim that human intelligence "can be so precisely described that a machine
can be made to simulate it".This raises philosophical arguments about the nature of the mind and the ethics
of creating artificial beings endowed with human-like intelligence, issues which have been explored by myth,
fiction and philosophy since antiquity. Some people also consider AI a danger to humanity if it progresses
unabatedly. Others believe that AI, unlike previous technological revolutions, will create a risk of mass
unemployment.
In the twenty-first century, AI techniques have experienced a resurgence following concurrent advances in
computer power, large amounts of data, and theoretical understanding; and AI techniques have become an
essential part of the technology industry, helping to solve many challenging problems in computer science.
History
Main articles: History of artificial intelligence and Timeline of artificial intelligence
While thought-capable artificial beings appeared as storytelling devices in antiquity, the idea of actually
trying to build a machine to perform useful reasoning may have begun with Ramon Llull (c. 1300 CE). With
his Calculus ratiocinator, Gottfried Leibniz extended the concept of the calculating machine (Wilhelm
Schickard engineered the first one around 1623), intending to perform operations on concepts rather than
numbers. Since the 19th century, artificial beings are common in fiction, as in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or
Karel Čapek's R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)ss described as "astonishing": computers were learning
checkers strategies (c. 1954) (and by 1959 were reportedly playing better than the average human), solving
word problems in algebra, proving logical theorems (Logic Theorist, first run c. 1956) and speaking English.
By the middle of the 1960s, research in the U.S. was heavily funded by the Department of Defense and
laboratories had been established around the world. AI's founders were optimistic about the future: Herbert
Simon predicted, "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". Marvin
Minsky agreed, writing, "within a generation ... the problem of creating 'artificial intelligence' will
substantially be solved".
They failed to recognize the difficulty of some of the remaining tasks. Progress slowed and in 1974, in
response to the criticism of Sir James Lighthill and ongoing pressure from the US Congress to fund more
productive projects, both the U.S. and British governments cut off exploratory research in AI. The next few
years would later be called an "AI winter", a period when obtaining funding for AI projects was difficult.
In the early 1980s, AI research was revived by the commercial success of expert systems, a form of AI
program that simulated the knowledge and analytical skills of human experts. By 1985 the market for AI had
reached over a billion dollars. At the same time, Japan's fifth generation computer project inspired the U.S
and British governments to restore funding for academic research. However, beginning with the collapse of
the Lisp Machine market in 1987, AI once again fell into disrepute, and a second, longer-lasting hiatus began.
In the late 1990s and early 21st century, AI began to be used for logistics, data mining, medical diagnosis and
other areas. The success was due to increasing computational power (Moore's law), greater emphasis on
solving specific problems, new ties between AI and other fields and a commitment by researchers to
mathematical methods and scientific standards. Deep Blue became the first computer chess-playing system
to beat a reigning world chess champion, Garry Kasparov on 11 May 1997.
Advanced statistical techniques (loosely known as deep learning), access to large amounts of data and faster
computers enabled advances in machine learning and perception. By the mid 2010s, machine learning
applications were used throughout the world. In a Jeopardy! quiz show exhibition match, IBM's question
answering system, Watson, defeated the two greatest Jeopardy champions, Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings,
by a significant margin. The Kinect, which provides a 3D body–motion interface for the Xbox 360 and the
Xbox One use algorithms that emerged from lengthy AI research as do intelligent personal assistants in
smartphones. In March 2016, AlphaGo won 4 out of 5 games of Go in a match with Go champion Lee Sedol,
becoming the first computer Go-playing system to beat a professional Go player without handicaps. In the
2017 Future of Go Summit, AlphaGo won a three-game match with Ke Jie, who at the time continuously held
the world No. 1 ranking for two years. This marked the completion of a significant milestone in the
development of Artificial Intelligence as Go is an extremely complex game, more so than Chess.
According to Bloomberg's Jack Clark, 2015 was a landmark year for artificial intelligence, with the number of
software projects that use AI within Google increased from a "sporadic usage" in 2012 to more than 2,700
projects. Clark also presents factual data indicating that error rates in image processing tasks have fallen
significantly since 2011. He attributes this to an increase in affordable neural networks, due to a rise in cloud
computing infrastructure and to an increase in research tools and datasets. Other cited examples include
Microsoft's development of a Skype system that can automatically translate from one language to another
and Facebook's system that can describe images to blind people.
Al~tract--The past decade has seen significant advances in medical artificial intelligence (MAI), but its role
in medicine and medical education remains limited. The goal for the next decade must be directed towards
maximizing the utility of MAI in the clinic and classroom. Fundamental to achieving this is increasing the
involvement of clinicians in MAI development. MAI developers must move from "pet projects" toward
generalizable tasks meeting recognized clinical needs. Clinical researchers must be made aware of
knowledge engineering, so clinical data bases can be prospectively designed to contribute directly into MAI
"knowledge bases". Closer involvement of MAI scientists with clinicians is also essential to further
understanding of cognitive processes in medical decision-making. Technological advances in user interfaces--
-including voice recognition, natural language processing, enhanced graphics and videodiscs--- must be
rapidly introduced into MAI to increase physician acceptance. Development of expert systems in non-clinical
areas must expand, particularly resource management, e.g. operating room or hospital admission
scheduling. The establishment of MAI laboratories at major medical centers around the country, involving
both clinicians and computer scientists, represents an ideal mechanism for bringing MAI into the
mainstream of medical computing.
CONCLUSIONS
Medicine and medical education are changing, and they will continue to do so over the next decade--with or
without AI. The challenge facing clinical practitioners, medical educators and computer scientists alike is to
establish goals and priorities that will allow MAI to assume a fundamental and positive role in these changes.
The generic benefits of AI, particularly in applications involving non-computer-literate users, are clear. The
potential for MAI in the next decade is great. To realize this potential will require the close cooperation of
physicians and computer scientists alike. An essential component to maximize physician adoption of MAI will
be stringent evaluation of MAI systems in prospective trials, combined with greater generalizability than has
been evident to date. The analogy to new drug evaluation is clear, and only a logical sequence of design,
development, and critical evaluation of emerging MAI technologies will assure widespread acceptance of
MAI in the 1990s.
As disruptive technologies appear on the stage of healthcare, it becomes possible to get down even more
deeply to the roots of diseases and treatments. The “one-size-fits-all” strategy will definitely start to crumble.
It is the logical result of hundreds of years of medical research and accumulated knowledge. Currently, we
know that everyone has a different genetic code, may react differently to pharmaceutics or may have a
completely opposite reaction to treatment as assumed.
So why should we treat everyone with the same drugs or with the same method? And one of the most efficient
means for precision medicine is artificial intelligence.
Big data analytics is one area where A.I., especially ANI comes into the picture. Within a couple of years, it will
most probably analyze big medical data sets, draw conclusions, find new correlations based on existing
precedences and support the doctor’s job e.g. in decision-making. Several companies recognized already the
immense potential in A.I. for mining medical records (Google Deepmind and IBM Watson), identifying
therapies (Zephyr Health), supporting radiology (Enlitic, Arterys, 3Scan) or genomics (Deep Genomics). My
personal favorite is Atomwise, which uses supercomputers that root out therapies from a database of
molecular structures. In 2015, Atomwise launched a virtual search for safe, existing medicines that could be
redesigned to treat the Ebola virus. They found two drugs predicted by the company’s A.I. technology which
may significantly reduce Ebola infectivity. This analysis, which typically would have taken months or years, was
completed in less than one day.
Yet, medical as well as technological limitations of A.I. as well as ANI will still be easier to overcome than ethical
and legal issues. Who is to blame if a smart algorithm makes a mistake and does not spot a cancerous nodule
on a lung X-ray? To whom to turn to when A.I. comes up with a false prediction? Who will build in safety
features? What will be the rules and regulations to decide on safety?
Although these burning questions cannot be answered in their entirety today, we have to do some
preparations to be able to keep the human touch at the center of medicine and avert the possibility of A.I.
becoming an existential threat to mankind feared by Elon Musk or Stephen Hawking.
I have no doubts about that A.I. will be the stethoscope of the 21st century and the backbone of precision
medicine. It has the biggest potential to analyze vast amounts of data and offer insights to create personalized
There are already great examples for its use in several hospitals: Google DeepMind launched a partnership
with the UK’s National Health Service to improve the process of delivering care with digital solutions. In June
2017, DeepMind expanded its services – first of all, its data management app, Streams, to another UK hospital.
IBM Watson is used at the Alder Hey Children’s Hospital as part of a science and technology facilities council
project being run by the Hartree Centre. We asked the first experiences of physicians with the technology and
gave an overview of the ever-expanding line of companies who are extensively investing in the development
of the technology recognizing its transformative capability in healthcare.
However, the question we always have to face is how we translate the vast potential of artificial intelligence
into everyday life. After the very first step – getting to know the most possible about A.I. in healthcare -, we
should get a clearer picture of the obstacles.
2) Medical limitations
To avoid over-hyping the technology, the medical limitations of present-day ANI also have to be
acknowledged. In the case of image recognition and using machine learning and deep learning algorithms for
the purposes of radiology, there is the risk of feeding the computer not only with thousands of images but
also underlying bias.
For example, the images tend to originate from one part of the U.S. or the framework for conceptualizing the
algorithm itself incorporates the subjective assumptions of the working team. Moreover, the forecasting and
predictive abilities of smart algorithms are anchored in previous cases – however, they might be useless in
novel cases of drug side-effects or treatment resistance.
On the other hand, streamlining and standardizing medical records in such a way that algorithms can make
sense of them mean another huge limitation in introducing ANI to hospital departments for doing
administrative tasks. There are many hospitals where doctors still scribble their notes on patients’ files. How
should the computer make sense of such notes if even the person who wrote that cannot read it two weeks
later?
3) Ethical challenges
Yet, medical as well as technological limitations of A.I. as well as ANI will still be easier to overcome than ethical
and legal issues. Who is to blame if a smart algorithm makes a mistake and does not spot a cancerous nodule
on a lung X-ray? To whom could someone turn when A.I. comes up with a false prediction? Who will build in
safety features so A.I. will not turn on humans? What will be the rules and regulations to decide on safety?
These complex ethical and legal questions should be answered if we want to reach the stage of AGI safely and
securely. Moreover, ANI and at a certain point, AGI, should be implemented cautiously and gradually in order
to give time and space for mapping the potential risks and downsides. Independent bioethical research groups,
as well as medical watchdogs, should monitor the process closely. This is exactly what the Open AI
Foundation does on a broader scale. It is a non-profit A.I. research company, discovering and enacting the
path to safe artificial general intelligence. Their work is invaluable, as they are doing long-term research, and
may help in setting up ethical standards on how to use A.I. on micro and macro levels. Perhaps also in the
healthcare sector.
4) Better regulations
The FDA approved the first cloud-based deep learning algorithm for cardiac imaging developed by Arterys in
2017; which is a huge step towards the future. However, regulations around artificial intelligence generally lag
behind or are literally non-existent. With the technology gaining ground and appearing in hospitals within the
next 5-10 years, decision-makers and high-level policy-makers cannot allow themselves not to tackle the issue.
They should rather step ahead of the technological waves and guide the process of implementing A.I. in
healthcare along the principles and ethical standards they work out with other industry stakeholders.
Moreover, they should push companies towards putting affordable A.I. solutions on the table and keeping the
focus on the patient all the time. Governments and policy-makers should also help in setting up standards on
A.I. usage as we need specific guidelines starting from the smallest units (medical professionals) until the most
complex ones (national-level healthcare systems).
6) Human rejection
Fears about A.I. eradicating humanity go hand-in-hand with exaggerated statements about A.I. coming for the
jobs of medical professionals. Even Stephen Hawking said that the development of full artificial intelligence
could spell the end of the human race. Elon Musk agreed. Moreover, artificial intelligence is said to take the
jobs of radiologists, robots are surpassing the skills of surgeons, or aim to take many jobs in pharma. No
wonder the medical community rejects A.I. Is it not enough for these smart algorithms to take over the world,
are they also coming for our jobs?
The fears around A.I. are understandable as so few of us actually understand how the technology works down
to the detail. And what we don’t understand, we tend to reject. Even more so, if thought-leaders or the media
also tend to treat the issue with exaggeration and extremities. And although it will take time to get accustomed
to the technology, we recommend everyone to be open-minded and familiarize with the concept of using A.I.
in everyday life.
There are various thought leaders who believe that we are experiencing the Fourth Industrial
Revolution,which is characterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and
biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what
it means to be human.
I am certain that healthcare will be the lead industrial area of such a revolution and one of the major catalysts
for change is going to be artificial intelligence.
Usually, we make sense of the world around us with the help of rules and processes which build up a system.
The world of Big Data is so huge that we will need artificial intelligence (AI) to be able to keep track of it.
We have not yet reached the state of “real” AI, but it is ready to sneak into our lives without any great
announcement or fanfares – narrow AI is already in our cars, in Google searches, Amazon suggestions and in
many other devices. Apple’s Siri, Microsoft’s Cortana, Google’s OK Google, and Amazon’s Echo services are
nifty in the way that they extract questions from speech
But there is already more to that. A 19-year-old British programmer launched a bot last September which is
successfully helping people to appeal their parking ticket. It is an “AI lawyer” who can sort out what to do with
the received parking ticket based on a few questions. Up until June, the bot has successfully appealed between
160,000 of 250,000 parking tickets in both London and New York, giving it a 64% success rate
And as winter finally arrived in the sixth season of Game of Thrones, we should be certain that we will gradually
get there. Only by looking at how many companies are interested in AI in healthcare gives the impression that
it is an area with a promising future. Although IBM’s Watson is the big dog in cognitive computing for
healthcare, the race is on and the track is growing increasingly crowded. Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Apple, Hitachi
Data Systems, Luminoso, Alchemy API, Digital Reasoning, Highspot, Lumiata, Sentient Technologies, Enterra,
IPSoft and Next IT – Just to mention a few names.
There are already several great examples of AI in healthcare showing potential implications and possible
future uses that could make us quite optimistic.
However, these solutions will only revolutionize medicine and healthcare if they are available to the average,
mainstream users – and not only to the richest medical institutions (because they are too expensive) or to a
handful of experts (because they are too difficult to use).
IBM launched another algorithm called Medical Sieve. It is an ambitious long-term exploratory project to build
the next generation “cognitive assistant” with analytical, reasoning capabilities and a wide range of clinical
knowledge. Medical Sieve is qualified to assist in clinical decision making in radiology and cardiology. The
“cognitive health assistant” is able to analyze radiology images to spot and detect problems faster and more
reliably. Radiologists in the future should only look at the most complicated cases where human supervision
is useful.
The medical start-up, Enlitic, which also aims to couple deep learning with vast stores of medical data to
advance diagnostics and improve patient outcomes, formulated the perks of deep learning the following
way: “Until recently, diagnostic computer programs were written using a series of predefined assumptions
about disease-specific features. A specialized program had to be designed for each part of the body and only
a limited set of diseases could be identified, preventing their flexibility and scalability. The programs often
oversimplified reality, resulting in poor diagnostic performance, and thus never reached widespread clinical
adoption. In contrast, deep learning can readily handle a broad spectrum of diseases in the entire body, and
all imaging modalities (X-rays, CT scans, etc.)
Also, there is already a solution for monitoring whether patients are taking their medications for real.
The AiCure app supported by The National Institutes of Health uses a smartphone’s webcam and AI to
autonomously confirm that patients are adhering to their prescriptions, or with better terms, supporting
them to make sure they know how to manage their condition. This is very useful for people with serious
medical conditions, for patients who tend to go against the doctor’s advice and participants in clinical trials.
Precision medicine:
Artificial intelligence will have a huge impact on genetics and genomics as well. Deep Genomics aims at
identifying patterns in huge data sets of genetic information and medical records, looking for mutations and
linkages to disease. They are inventing a new generation of computational technologies that can tell doctors
what will happen within a cell when DNA is altered by genetic variation, whether natural or therapeutic.
At the same time, Craig Venter, one of the fathers of the Human Genome Project is working on an algorithm
that could design a patient’s physical characteristics based on their DNA. With his latest enterprise, Human
Longevity, he offers his (mostly affluent) patients complete genome sequencing coupled with a full body
scan and very detailed medical check-up. The whole process enables to spot cancer or vascular diseases in
their very early stage.
Drug creation:
Developing pharmaceuticals through clinical trials take sometimes more than a decade and costs billions of
dollars. Speeding this up and making more cost-effective would have an enormous effect on today’s
healthcare and how innovations reach everyday medicine. Atom wise uses supercomputers that root out
therapies from a database of molecular structures. Last year, Atom wise launched a virtual search for safe,
existing medicines that could be redesigned to treat the Ebola virus. They found two drugs predicted by the
company’s AI technology which may significantly reduce Ebola infectivity. This analysis, which typically would
have taken months or years, was completed in less than one day. “If we can fight back deadly viruses months
or years faster that represents tens of thousands of lives,” said Alexander Levy, COO of Atomwise.“Imagine
how many people might survive the next pandemic because a technology like Atomwise
Another great example of using big data for patient management is Berg Health, a Boston-based biopharma
company, which mines data to find out why some people survive diseases and thus improve current treatment
or create new therapies. They combine AI with the patients’ own biological data to map out the differences
between healthy and disease-friendly environments and help in the discovery and development of drugs,
diagnostics and healthcare applications.
It is especially true in the case of medicine and healthcare. There is so much data to utilize: patient medical
history records, treatment data – and lately information coming from wearable health trackers and sensors.
This huge amount of data could be analyzed in details not only to provide patients who want to be proactive
with better suggestions about lifestyle, but it could also serve healthcare with instructive pieces of
information about how to design healthcare based on the needs and habits of patients.
I do not think that the situation is so gloomy, but I agree with those who stress the need to prepare for the
use of artificial intelligence appropriately. We need the following preparations to avoid the pitfalls of the
utilization of AI:
1. creation of ethical standards which are applicable to and obligatory for the whole healthcare sector
2. the gradual development of AI in order to give some time for mapping of the possible downsides
3. for medical professionals: acquirement of basic knowledge about how AI works in a medical setting in
order to understand how such solutions might help them in their everyday job for patients:
4. getting accustomed to artificial intelligence and discovering its benefits for themselves – e.g. with the help
of Cognitoys which support the cognitive development of small children with the help of AI in a fun and
gentle way or with such services as Siri.
5. for companies developing AI solutions (such as IBM): even more communication towards the general
public about the potential advantages and risks of using AI in medicine.
6. for decision-makers at healthcare institutions: doing all the necessary steps to be able to measure the
success and the effectiveness of the system. It is also important to push companies towards offering
affordable AI-solutions since it is the only way to bring the promise of science fiction into reality and turn
AI into the stethoscope of the 21st century.
If we succeed, huge medical discoveries and treatment breakthroughs will dominate the news not from time
to time, but several times a day. If you ever come across or use a narrow AI system, you will understand my
optimism.
2) Loss of privacy
We share much more information about ourselves than we think. Check mypermissions.org to see what
services and apps you have given permission to access your personal information already. What if, as
augmented reality spreads, all this information will be easily available to someone you just met? Kids who
are born now represent the first generation whose lives are logged in meticulous detail – either by
themselves or well-meaning but clueless relations. While such big data could significantly improve
healthcare, how can we prevent companies and governments from misusing these? What if you ate red
meat and your insurance company immediately raised your insurance rates because you’re not eating
healthy enough?
) Bioterrorism
In the wildest futuristic scenarios, tiny nano robots in our bloodstream could detect diseases. These
microscopic robots would send alerts to our smartphones or digital contact lenses before disease could
develop in our body. When most human bodies will contain tiny robots, how can we prevent terrorists from
hacking these devices to gain direct control over our health?
REFERENCES 1. W. Clancy and E. Shortliffe (Eds), Readings in Medical Artificial Intelligence. Addison-
Wesley, Reading, Mass. (1984). 2. P. Harmon and D. King, Expert Systems, pp. 134-154 Wiley, New York
(1984). 3. V. L. Yu, L. M. Fagan, S. M. Wraith, W. J. Clancy, A. C. Scott, J. Hannigan, R~ L. Blum, B. G. Buchanan
and S. N. Cohen, Antimicrobial selection by a computer. A blinded evaluation by infectious diseases experts.
JAMA 242, 1279-1282 (1979). 4. V. K. Sondak and N. E. Sondak, Artificial intelligence and medical education:
an overview and commentary. Proc. 3rd A. artif, lntell, adv Comput. Technol. Conf, Long Beach, California,
pp. 484-489 (1987). 5. R. Schneewiess and V. Cherewatenko, Physicians' attitude toward the uses of
computers in office practice. J. Fam. Prac. 5, 463-465 (1986). 6. R. G. Knapp, M. C. Miller, and J. Levine,
Experience with and attitudes towards computers in medicine of students and clinical faculty members at
one school. J. med. Educ. 62, 344-346 (1987). 7. Executive Council Association of American Medical Colleges,
Evaluation of medical information science in medical education. J. med. Educ. 61, 487-543 (1986). 8. J.
Anderson (Ed.), Neurocomputing: Foundations of Research. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1988). 9. P. F.
Castelaz, Application of neural network solution to battle management processing functions. 55th milit. Ops.
Res. Soc. Symp., Huntsville, Alabama, May (1987). 10. W. S. McCulloch and W. H. Pitts, A logical calculus of
the ideas imminent in nervous activity. Bull. math. Biophy. 5, 115 (1943). 11. D. O. Hebb, The Organization of
Behavior. Wiley, New York, (1949). 12. M. Minsky and S. Pappert, Perceptrons: An Introduction to
Computational Geometry. MIT Press, Cambridge. 13. J. J. Hopfield, Neural networks and physical systems
with emergent collective computational properties. Proc. Nam. Acad. Sci. 79, 2554-2558 (1982).
1. Coiera, E. (1997). Guide to medical informatics, the internet and telemedicine. Chapman & Hall, Ltd..
2. Jump up^ Power, B. (2015, March 19). Artificial Intelligence Is Almost Ready for Business. Retrieved
from https://hbr.org/2015/03/artificial-intelligence-is-almost-ready-for-business
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Bloch-Budzier, S. (2016, November 22). NHS using Google technology to treat patients. Retrieved
from http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38055509
4. Jump up^ Lorenzetti, L. (2016, April 5). Here's How IBM Watson Health is Transforming the Health Care Industry.
Retrieved from http://fortune.com/ibm-watson-health-business-strategy/
5. ^ Jump up to:a b CB Insights Artificial Intelligence report. (2016, June 28). Retrieved
from https://www.cbinsights.com/reports/CB-Insights-Artificial-Intelligence-Webinar.pdf
6. Jump up^ Lindsay, R. K., Buchanan, B. G., Feigenbaum, E. A., & Lederberg, J. (1993). DENDRAL: a case study of the
first expert system for scientific hypothesis formation. Artificial intelligence, 61(2), 209-261.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b Clancey, W. J., & Shortliffe, E. H. (1984). Readings in medical artificial intelligence: the first decade.
Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc..
8. Jump up^ Bruce, G., Buchanan, B. G., & Shortliffe, E. D. (1984). Rule-based expert systems: the MYCIN experiments
of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project.
9. Jump up^ Duda, R. O., & Shortliffe, E. H. (1983). Expert systems research. Science, 220(4594), 261-268.
10. Jump up^ Miller, R. A. (1994). Medical diagnostic decision support systems—past, present, and future. Journal of the
American Medical Informatics Association, 1(1), 8-27.
11. Jump up^ Adlassnig KP. A fuzzy logical model of' computer-assisted medical diagnosis. Methods Inf Med. 1980;
19:14
12. Jump up^ Reggia, J. A., & Peng, Y. (1987). Modeling diagnostic reasoning: a summary of parsimonious covering
theory. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 25(2), 125-134.
13. Jump up^ Baxt, W. G. (1991). Use of an artificial neural network for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction. Annals of
Internal Medicine, 115(11), 843-848.
14. Jump up^ Maclin, P. S., Dempsey, J., Brooks, J., & Rand, J. (1991). Using neural networks to diagnose cancer. Journal
of Medical Systems, 15(1), 11-19.
15. Jump up^ Koomey, J., Berard, S., Sanchez, M., & Wong, H. (2011). Implications of historical trends in the electrical
efficiency of computing. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 33(3), 46-54.
16. Jump up^ Dinov, I. D. (2016). Volume and value of big healthcare data. Journal of medical statistics and informatics,
4.
17. Jump up^ Barnes, B., & Dupré, J. (2009). Genomes and what to make of them. University of Chicago Press.
18. Jump up^ Jha, A. K., DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Donelan, K., Rao, S. R., Ferris, T. G., ... & Blumenthal, D.
(2009). Use of electronic health records in US hospitals. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(16), 1628-1638.
19. Jump up^ Banko, M., & Brill, E. (2001, July). Scaling to very very large corpora for natural language disambiguation.
In Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (pp. 26-33). Association for
Computational Linguistics.
20. Jump up^ Dougherty, G. (2009). Digital image processing for medical applications. Cambridge University Press.
21. ^ Jump up to:a b Cohn, Jonathan. "The Robot Will See You Now." The Atlantic, March
2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/03/the-robot-will-see-you-now/309216/.
22. Jump up^ Spear, Andrew. "From Cancer to Consumer Tech: A Look Inside IBM's Watson Health Strategy." Fortune,
April 5, 2016. http://fortune.com/ibm-watson-health-business-strategy/.
23. Jump up^ Bass, Dina. "Microsoft Develops AI to Help Cancer Doctors Find the Right Treatments." Bloomberg,
September 20, 2016. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/microsoft-develops-ai-to-help-
cancer-doctors-find-the-right-treatments.
24. Jump up^ Knapton, Sarah. "Microsoft Will 'Solve' Cancer within 10 Years by 'Reprogramming' Diseased Cells." The
Telegraph, September 20, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/20/microsoft-will-solve-cancer-
within-10-years-by-reprogramming-dis/.
25. Jump up^ Bloch-Budzier, Sarah. "NHS Using Google Technology to Treat Patients." BBC News, November 22,
2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38055509.
26. Jump up^ Lee, Chris Baraniuk, Dave. "Google DeepMind Targets NHS Head and Neck Cancer Treatment." BBC News,
August 31, 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37230806.
27. Jump up^ Primack, Dan. "Intel Capital Cancels $1 Billion Portfolio Sale." Fortune, May 26,
2016. http://fortune.com/2016/05/26/intel-capital-cancels-1-billion-portfolio-sale/.
28. Jump up^ Hernandez, Daniela. "Artificial Intelligence Is Now Telling Doctors How to Treat You." WIRED, June 2,
2014. https://www.wired.com/2014/06/ai-healthcare/.
29. Jump up^ Proffitt, Cas "Top 10 Artificially Intelligent Personal Assistants." Disruptor Daily, Mar 8,
2017. http://www.disruptordaily.com/top-10-artificially-intelligent-personal-assistants/
30. ^ Jump up to:a b Felten, Ed. "Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence." Whitehouse.gov, May 3,
2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/05/03/preparing-future-artificial-intelligence.
31. Jump up^ "The National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan." Office of Science and
Technology Policy, October 16, 2016. https://www.nitrd.gov/PUBS/national_ai_rd_strategic_plan.pdf.
32. Jump up^ Office of the Press Secretary. "At Cancer Moonshot Summit, Vice President Biden Announces New Actions
to Accelerate Progress Toward Ending Cancer As We Know It." Whitehouse.gov, June 28,
2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/28/fact-sheet-cancer-moonshot-summit-vice-
president-biden-announces-new.
33. Jump up^ Office of the Press Secretary. "President Obama's Precision Medicine Initiative." Whitehouse.gov, January
30, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-precision-
medicine-initiative.
http://medicalfuturist.com/category/blog/artificial-intelligence/page/2/
1. [1]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bramer, M.A. and D. Bramer,The Fifth Generation: An Annotated Bibliography, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1984.Google Scholar
2. [2]
Gevarter, W.B.,Artificial Intelligence, Expert Systems, Computer Vision, and Natural Language Processing, Noyes Publications, Park
Ridge, NJ, 1984.Google Scholar
3. [3]
Glover, F., Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence,Computers and Operations Research 13(5) (1987)
533–549.Google Scholar
4. [4]
Gonzalez, R.C. and P. Wintz,Digital Image Processing, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1977.Google Scholar
5. [5]
Papadimitriou, C.H., An algorithm for shortest path motion in three dimensions,Information Processing Letters 20 (1985) 259–
263.Google Scholar
6. [6]
7. [7]
Rylko, H.M.,Artificial Intelligence: bibliographic summaries of the select literature, Vol. I, A Report Store Consensus Bibliography,
Lawrence, KS, 1984.Google Scholar
1. [8]
Rylko, H.M.,Artificial Intelligence: bibliographic summaries of the select literature, Vol. II, A Report Store Consensus Bibliography,
Lawrence, KS, 1985.Google Scholar
2. [9]
Wagner, H.,Principles of Management Science, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970.Google Scholar
3. [10]
Andrew, A.M.,Artificial Intelligence, Abacus Press, 1983. (Vol. 3 in the Cybernetics and Systems Series, J. Rose, series ed.)Google
Scholar
4. [11]
Barr, A. and E.A. Feigenbaum,The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. I, William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA, 1981.Google Scholar
5. [12]
Barr, A. and E.A. Feigenbaum,The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. II, William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA, 1982.Google Scholar
6. [13]
Bramer, M.A. and D. Bramer,The Fifth Generation: An Annotated Bibliography, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1984.Google Scholar
7. [14]
Charniak, E. and D.V. McDermott,Introduction to Artificial Intelligence, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
8. [15]
Clocksin, W.F. and C.S. Mellish,Programming in PROLOG, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
9. [16]
Cohen, P.R. and E.A. Feigenbaum,The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. III, William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA, 1982.Google
Scholar
10. [17]
Dreyfus, H.L. and S.E. Dreyfus,Mind over Machine, MacMillan/The Free Press, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
11. [18]
Feigenbaum, E.A. and J. Feldman, eds.,Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
12. [19]
Feigenbaum, E.A. and P. McCorduck,The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1983.Google Scholar
13. [20]
Fischler, M.A. and O. Firschein,Intelligence: the Eye, the Brain and the Computer, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1977.Google
Scholar
14. [21]
Giannesini, F., H. Hanoui, R. Pasero and M. van Caneghem,PROLOG, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
15. [22]
Nilsson, N.J.,Problem-solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
16. [23]
Nilsson, N.J.,Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Tioga, Palo Alto, CA, 1980.Google Scholar
17. [24]
18. [25]
Rylko, H.M.,Artificial Intelligence: bibliographic summaries of the select literature, Vol. I, A Report Store Consensus Bibliography,
Lawrence, KS, 1984.Google Scholar
19. [26]
Rylko, H.M.,Artificial Intelligence: bibliographic summaries of the select literature, Vol. II, A Report Store Consensus Bibliography,
Lawrence, KS, 1985.Google Scholar
20. [27]
O'Shea, T. and M. Eisenstadt,Artificial Intelligence: Tools, Techniques and Applications, Harper and Row, New York, 1984.Google
Scholar
21. [28]
Scientific Datalink, The Scientific Datalink Index to Artificial Intelligence Research (1954–1984) and (1985 supplement), Comtex
Scientific Corporation, New York, (Authors, Titles, Abstracts, Subjects).Google Scholar
22. [29]
Simon, H.A.,Science of the Artificial, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1969.Google Scholar
23. [30]
Winograd, T., R. Davis, S.E. Dreyfus and B. Smith, Expert systems: how far can they go?,Proceedings of IJCAI 9 (1985) 1306–
1309.Google Scholar
24. [31]
Winston, P.H.,Artificial Intelligence, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1984, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
25. [32]
Winston, P.H. and R.H. Brown,Arificial Intelligence: An MIT Perspective, Vols. 1 and 2, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1979.Google
Scholar
26. [33]
Blair, C.E., R.G. Jeroslow and J.K. Lowe, Some results and experiments in programming techniques for propositional logic,Computers
and Operations Research 13(5) (1986) 633–645.Google Scholar
27. [34]
Glover, F., Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence,Computers and Operations Research 13(5) (1986)
533–549.Google Scholar
28. [35]
Grant, T.J., Lessons for O.R. from A.I.: a scheduling case study,Journal of the Operational Research Society 37(1) (1986) 41–
57.Google Scholar
29. [36]
Jeroslow, R.G., An extension of mixed-integer programming models and techniques to some database and Artificial Intelligence
settings, Technical Report, College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, March 1987.Google Scholar
30. [37]
Kusiak, A., Applications of operational research models and techniques in flexible manufacturing systems,European Journal of
Operational Research 24(3) (1986) 336–345.Google Scholar
31. [38]
Kusiak, A., Artificial intelligence and operations research in flexible manufacturing systems,INFOR 25(1) (1987) 2–12.Google Scholar
32. [39]
O'Keefe, R.M., Expert systems and operational research — mutual benefits,Journal of the Operational Research Society 36(2) (1985)
125–129.Google Scholar
33. [40]
Paul, R.J. and G.I. Doukidis, Further developments in the use of artificial intelligence techniques which formulate simulatio n
problems,Journal of the Operational Research Society 37(8) (1986) 787–810.Google Scholar
34. [41]
Phelps, R.I., Artificial intelligence, an overview of similarities with O.R.,Journal of the Operational Research Society 37(1) (1986) 13–
20.Google Scholar
35. [42]
Radermacher, F.J., ed.,Proceedings of the International Conference on multi-attribute decision-making via OR-based expert
systems, West Germany, April 1987.Google Scholar
36. [43]
Reggia, J.A., D.S. Nau and Y. Peng, A formal model of diagnostic inference I: problem formulation and decomposition,Information
Sciences 37 (1985) 227–256.Google Scholar
37. [44]
Reggia, J.A., D.S. Nau and Y. Wang, A formal model of diagnostic inference II: algorithmic solution and application,Information
Sciences 37 (1985) 257–285.Google Scholar
38. [45]
Shaw, M.J. and A.B. Whinston, Applications of artificial intelligence to planning and scheduling in flexible manufacturing, in A.
Kusiak ed.,Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Methods and Studies, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986) 223–242.Google Scholar
39. [46]
Amarel, S., An approach to heuristic problem-solving and theorem proving in the propositional calculus, in: J. Hart and S. Tahasu,
eds.,Systems and Computer Science, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1967.Google Scholar
40. [47]
Evans, T.G., A heuristic program to solve geometric analogy problems, in: M. Minsky, ed.,Semantic Information Processing, M.I.T.
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1963.Google Scholar
41. [48]
Kowalski, R., AND/OR graphs, theorem proving graphs, and bidirectional search,Machine Intelligence 7 (1972) 167–194.Google
Scholar
42. [49]
Kowalski, R.A.,Logic for Problem Solving, Elsevier, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
43. [50]
Laurière, J.L., A language and a program for stating and solving combinatorial problems,Artificial Intelligence 10 (1978) 29–
127.Google Scholar
44. [51]
Levi, G. and F. Sirovich, Generalized AND/OR graphs,Artificial Intelligence 7 (1976) 243–259.Google Scholar
45. [52]
Vanderbrug, G.J., Problem representations and formal properties of heuristic search,Information Sciences 2 (1976) 279–307.Google
Scholar
46. [53]
Fisher, M.L., Worst-case analysis of heuristic algorithms,Management Science 26 (1980) 1–17.Google Scholar
47. [54]
Graham, R.L., E.L. Lawler, J.K. Lenstra and A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and
scheduling: a survey,Annals of Discrete Mathematics 5 (1979) 287–326.Google Scholar
48. [55]
Groner, R., M. Groner and W.F. Bischof, eds.,Methods of Heuristics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1983.
1. [56]
Hu, T.C. and E.S. Kuh, Theory and concepts of circuit layout, in: T.C. Hu and E.S. Kuh, eds.,VLSI Circuit Layout: Theory and Design,
IEEE Press, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
2. [57]
Johnson, D.S., Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems,Journal of Computer and System Sciences 9 (1976) 256–
278.Google Scholar
3. [58]
Kusiak, A., ed.,Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Methods and Studies, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.Google Scholar
4. [59]
Lenat, D.B., Discovery in mathematics as heuristic search, Ph.D. Dissertation, Computer Science Department, Carnegie-Mellon
University, 1977.Google Scholar
5. [60]
Lenat, D.B., The nature of heuristics, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 1980.Google Scholar
6. [61]
Lin, S., Computer solutions of the travelling salesman problem,Bell Systems Technical Journal 44 (1965) 2245–2269.Google Scholar
7. [62]
Minsky, M., Heuristic aspects of the Artificial Intelligence problem, Group Report No. 34-55, Lincoln Laboratory, MIT (ASTIA Doc.
No. AS236885), Lexington, MA, 1956.Google Scholar
8. [63]
Mueller-Merbach, H., Heuristic methods: structures, applications, computational experience, in: R. Cottle and J. Krarup,
eds.,Optimization Methods for Resource Allocation, English Universities Press, London, 1974, 401–416.Google Scholar
9. [64]
Newell, A. and H.A. Simon, Heuristic problem solving: the next advance in Operations Research,Operations Research 6(1)
(1958).Google Scholar
10. [65]
Newell, A. and H.A. Simon,Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.Google Scholar
11. [66]
Pearl, J., Heuristic search theory: a survey of recent results,Proceedings of IJCAI 7, (1981) 24–28.Google Scholar
12. [67]
13. [68]
Pearl, J.,Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem Solving, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1984.Google
Scholar
14. [69]
Pohl, I., Practical and theoretical considerations in heuristic search algorithms, in: E.W. Elcock and D. Michie, eds.,Machine
Intelligence 8, Wiley, New York, 1977, 55–72.Google Scholar
15. [70]
Slagle, J.R.,Artificial Intelligence: The Heuristic Programming Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
16. [71]
Sussman, G. and R. Stallman, Heuristic techniques in computer-aided circuit analysis,IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems,
CAS 22(11) (1975) 857–865.Google Scholar
17. [72]
Thompson, G.L., Heuristic programming: theory and computation, in: J.F. Pierce, ed.,Operations Research and the Design of
Management Information Systems, Techn. Ass. of the Pulp and Paper Industry, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
18. [73]
Zadeh, L.A., Approximate reasoning based on fuzzy logic,Proceedings of IJCAI 6 (1979) 1004–1010.Google Scholar
19. [74]
Deo, N. and C. Pang, Shortest path algorithms: taxonomy and annotations, CS-80-057, Computer Science Department, Washington
State University, 1971.Google Scholar
20. [75]
Gallo, G. and S. Pallottino, Shortest path methods: a unifying approach,Mathematical Programming Studies 26 (1986) 38–64.Google
Scholar
21. [76]
Horowitz, E. and S. Sahni,Fundamentals of Computer Algorithms, Computer Science Press, Potomac, MD, 1978.Google Scholar
22. [77]
Tarjan, R.E., Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms,SIAM Journal of Computing1 (1972) 146–160.Google Scholar
23. [78]
Bagchi, A. and A. Mahanti, Search algorithms under different kinds of heuristics — a comparative study,Journal of ACM 30(1) (1983)
1–21.Google Scholar
24. [79]
Camerini, P.M. and F. Maffioli, Heuristically guided algorithm fork-parity matroid problems,Discrete Mathematics 21 (1978) 103–
116.Google Scholar
25. [80]
Chakrabarti, P.P., S. Ghose and S.C. De Sarkar, Heuristic search through islands,Artificial Intelligence 29 (1986) 339–347.Google
Scholar
26. [81]
De Champeaux, B. and L. Sint, An improved bi-directional heuristic search algorithm,Journal of ACM 24 (1977) 177–191.Google
Scholar
27. [82]
Dechter, R. and J. Pearl, Generalized best first strategies and the optimality ofA*,Journal of ACM 32 (1985) 505–536.Google Scholar
28. [83]
Hart, P.E., N.J. Nilsson and B. Raphael, A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum test paths, IEEE Transactions on
Systems and Cybernetics SSC-4(2) (1968) 100–107.Google Scholar
29. [84]
Hart, P.E., N.J. Nilsson and B. Raphael, Correction to a formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,SIGART
Newsletter 37 (1972) 28–29.Google Scholar
30. [85]
Ibaraki, T., The power of dominance relations in branch-and-bound algorithms,Journal of ACM 24(2) (1977) 264–279.Google Scholar
31. [86]
Ibaraki, T., Branch-and-bound procedures and state space representation of combinatorial optimization problems,Information and
Control 36 (1978 a) 1–27.Google Scholar
32. [87]
Ibaraki, T.,M-depth search in branch-and-bound algorithms,International Journal on Computers and Information Science 7 (1978 b)
315–373.Google Scholar
33. [88]
Kernighan, B.W. and S. Lin, An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs,Bell Systems Technical Journal 29 (February
1970) 291–307.Google Scholar
34. [89]
Korf, R.E., Depth-first iterative-deepening: an optimal admissible tree search,Artificial Intelligence 27 (1985) 97–109.Google Scholar
35. [90]
Krishnamurthy, B., An improved min-cut algorithm for partitioning VLSI networks,IEEE Transactions on Computers C-33(5) (May
1984) 438–446.Google Scholar
36. [91]
Laurierè, J.L., A language and a program for stating and solving combinatorial problems,Artificial Intelligence 10 (1978) 29–
127.Google Scholar
37. [92]
Lawler, E.L. and D.E. Wood, Branch-and-bound methods: a survey,Operations Research14 (1966) 699–719.Google Scholar
38. [93]
Lin, S., Computer solutions of the travelling salesman problem,Bell Systems Technical Journal 44 (1965) 2245–2269.Google Scholar
39. [94]
Martelli, A., On the complexity of admissible search heuristics,Artificial Intelligence 8 (1977) 1–13.Google Scholar
40. [95]
Mérő, L., Some remarks on heuristic search algorithms,Proceedings IJCAI 7 (1981) 572–574.Google Scholar
41. [96]
Mitten, L.G., Branch-and-bound methods: general formulation and properties,Operations Research 18 (1970) 23–34.Google Scholar
42. [97]
Montanari, U., Heuristically guided search and chromosome matching,Artificial Intelligence 1 (1970) 227–245.Google Scholar
43. [98]
Morin, T.L. and R.E. Marsten, Branch and bound strategies for dynamic programming,Operations Research 24 (1976) 611–627.
1. [99]
Nemhauser, G.L., A generalized permanent label setting algorithm for the shortest path between specified nodes,Journal of
Mathematical Analysis and Applications 38 (1972) 328–334.Google Scholar
2. [100]
Pearl, J., Knowledge versus search: a quantitative analysis usingA*,Artificial Intelligence20 (1983) 1–13.Google Scholar
3. [101]
Pearl, J.,Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem Solving, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1984.Google
Scholar
4. [102]
Pohl, I., First results on the effect of error in heuristic search, in: B. Meltger and D. Michie, eds., Machine Intelligence 5, Elsevier, New
York, 1970, 219–236.Google Scholar
5. [103]
Amarel, S., An approach to heuristic problem-solving and theorem proving in the propositional calculus, in: J. Hart and S. Tahasu,
eds.,Systems and Computer Science, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1967.Google Scholar
6. [104]
Bagchi, A. and A. Mahanti, AND/OR graph heuristic search methods,Journal of ACM 32 (1985) 1–27.Google Scholar
7. [105]
Chang, C.L. and J.R. Slagle, An admissible and optimal algorithm for searching AND/OR graphs,Artificial Intelligence 2 (1971) 117–
128.Google Scholar
8. [106]
Dechter, R. and J. Pearl, Generalized best first search strategies and the optimality ofA*,Journal of ACM 32 (1985) 505–536.Google
Scholar
9. [107]
Hinxmann, A.I., Problem reduction and the two-dimensional trim-loss problem, in:Proceedings Summer Conference on Artificial
Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, 1976.Google
Scholar
10. [108]
Kowalski, R., AND/OR graphs, theorem proving graphs, and bidirectional search,Machine Intelligence 7 (1972) 167–194.Google
Scholar
11. [109]
Kumar, V. and L.N. Kanal, A general branch-and-bound formulation for understanding and synthesizing AND/OR tree search
procedures,Artificial Intelligence 21 (1983) 179–198.Google Scholar
12. [110]
Martelli, A. and U. Montanari, Additive AND/OR graphs,Proceedings IJCAI 3(1973) 1–11.Google Scholar
13. [111]
Martelli, A. and U. Montanari, Optimizing decision trees through heuristically guided search,Communications of ACM 21 (1978)
1025–1039.Google Scholar
14. [112]
Nilsson, N.J., Searching problem solving and game-playing trees for minimal cost solutions, in: A.J.H. Morrell, ed.,Information
Processing 68, Vol. 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969, 1556–1562.Google Scholar
15. [113]
16. [114]
Vanderbrug, G.J. and J. Minker, State-space, problem-reduction and theorem proving — some relationships,Communications of
ACM 18 (1975) 107–115.Google Scholar
17. [115]
Bagchi, A. and A. Mahanti, Search algorithms under different kinds of heuristics — a comparative study,Journal of ACM 30(1) (1983)
1–21.Google Scholar
18. [116]
Dechter, R. and J. Pearl, Generalized best first strategies and the optimality ofA*,Journal of ACM 32 (1985) 505–536.Google Scholar
19. [117]
Gaschnig, J., Performance measurement and analysis of certain search heuristics, Ph.D. Dissertation, Computer Science Department,
Carnegie-Mellon University, 1979.Google Scholar
20. [118]
Gelperin, D., On the optimality ofA*,Artificial Intelligence 8(1) (1977) 69–76.Google Scholar
21. [119]
Harris, L.R., The heuristic search under conditions of error,Artificial Intelligence 5(3) (1974) 217–134.Google Scholar
22. [120]
Hart, P.E., N.J. Nilsson and B. Raphael, A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum test paths, IEEE Transactions on
Systems Science and Cybernetics SSC-4(2) (1968) 100–107.Google Scholar
23. [121]
Huyn, N., R. Dechter and J. Pearl, Probabilistic analysis of the complexity ofA*,Artificial Intelligence 15 (1980) 241–254.Google
Scholar
24. [122]
Karp, R.M., The probabilistic analysis of some combinatorial search algorithms, in: J.F. Traub, ed.,Algorithms and Complexity: New
Directions and Recent Results, Academic Press, New York, 1976, 1–19.Google Scholar
25. [123]
Knuth, D.E., Estimating the efficiency of backtrack programs,Mathematics of Computation 24 (1975) 121–136.Google Scholar
26. [124]
Munyer, J., Some results on the complexity of heuristic search in graphs, Technical Report HP-76-2, Information Sciences
Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1976.Google Scholar
27. [125]
Pearl, J., Knowledge versus search: a quantitative analysis usingA*,Artificial Intelligence20 (1983) 1–13.Google Scholar
28. [126]
Pohl I., First results on the effect of error in heuristic search, in: B. Meltger and D. Michie, eds.,Machine Intelligence 5, Elsevier, New
York, 1970, 219–236.Google Scholar
29. [127]
Vanderbrug, G.J., Problem representations and formal properties of heuristic search,Information Sciences 2 (1976) 279–307.Google
Scholar
30. [128]
31. [129]
Ernst, G.W. and M.M. Goldstein, Mechanical discovery of classes of problem-solving strategies,Journal of ACM 29(1) (1982) 1–
23.Google Scholar
32. [130]
Gaschnig, J., A problem similarity approach to devising heuristics: first results,Proceedings IJCAI 6 (1979) 301–307.Google Scholar
33. [131]
Geoffrion, A.M., Elements of large scale mathematical programming. Part I: Concepts, in: A.M. Geoffrion, ed.,Perspectives in
Optimization, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1972, 25–48.Google Scholar
34. [132]
Guida, G. and M. Somalvico, A method for computing heuristics in problem solving,Information Sciences 19 (1979) 251–259.Google
Scholar
35. [133]
Kibler, D., Natural generation of admissable heuristics, Department of Computer Science, University of California at Irvine,
1982.Google Scholar
36. [134]
Lenat, D.B., EURISKO: A program that learns new heuristics and domain concepts. The nature of heuristics III: program design and
results,Artificial Intelligence 21(1–2) (1983) 61–98.Google Scholar
37. [135]
Maffioli, F., M.G. Speranza and C. Vercellis, Randomized algorithms: an annotated bibliography,Annals of Operations Research 1
(1984) 331–345.Google Scholar
38. [136]
Mitchell, T.M., R. Utgoff, B. Nudel and R.B. Banerji, Learning problem solving heuristics through practice, Proceedings of IJCAI
7 (1981) 127–134.Google Scholar
39. [137]
Pearl, J., On the discovery and generation of certain heuristics,The UCLA Computer Science Quarterly 10(2) (1982) 121–132,
Reprinted inAI Magazine (Winter/Spring 1983) 23–33.Google Scholar
40. [138]
Valtorta, M., A result on the computational complexity of heuristic estimates for theA* algorithm, Department of Conputer Science,
Duke University, Durham, NC, 1981.Google Scholar
41. [139]
Waterman, D., Generalization of learning techniques for automating the learning of heuristics,Artificial Intelligence 1 (1970) 121–
170.Google Scholar
42. [140]
Bacharach, M.,Economics and the Theory of Games, McMillan, London, 1976.Google Scholar
43. [141]
Berge, C.,Théorie Générale des jeux à n Personnes, Mem. des Sciences Math. 138, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1957.Google Scholar
44. [142]
Berlekamp, E.R., J.H. Conway and R.K. Guy,Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays, Academic Press, New York, 1982.Google
Scholar
45. [143]
Brams, S.J.,Game Theory and Politics, The Free Press, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
46. [144]
Gillies, D.B., Solutions to general non-zero-sum games,Annals of Mathematics Studies40, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
1959, 47–85.Google Scholar
47. [145]
Kaplan, E.L.,Mathematical Programming and Games, Wiley, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
48. [146]
Luce, R.D. and H. Raiffa,Games and Decisions, Wiley, New York, 1957.Google Scholar
49. [147]
50. [148]
Shapley, L.S. and M. Shubik, Characteristic function, core and stable sets,Game Theory in Economics, Ch. 6, Rand Corporation
Report R-904/6-NSF, 1973.Google Scholar
51. [149]
Von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern,Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1944,
1967, 1983.Google Scholar
52. [150]
Acosta, A., Conditions for pathological search on MIN-MAX games, Master's thesis, Department of Engineering Systems, School of
Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles, 1982.Google Scholar
53. [151]
Beal, D., An analysis of minimax, in: M.R.B. Clarke, ed.,Advances in Computer Chess 2, University Press, Edinburgh, 1980, 103–
109.Google Scholar
54. [152]
Beal, D., Benefits of minimax search, in: M.R.B. Clarke, ed.,Advances in Computer Chess 3, Pergamon, Elmsford, NY, 1982, 17–
24.Google Scholar
55. [153]
Berliner, H.J., TheB* tree search algorithm: a best-first proof procedure,Artificial Intelligence 12(1) (1979) 23–40.Google Scholar
56. [154]
Campbell, M.S. and T.A. Marshland, A comparison of minimax tree search algorithms,Artificial Intelligence 20(4) (1983) 347–
367.Google Scholar
57. [155]
Hart, T.P. and D.J. Edwards, The tree prune (TP) algorithm,M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Project Memo #30, R.L.E. and Computation
Center, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, 1961.Google Scholar
58. [156]
Ibaraki, T., Generalization of Alpha-Beta and SSS* search procedures,Artificial Intelligence 29 (1986) 73–117.Google Scholar
59. [157]
Knuth, D.E. and R.W. Moore, An analysis of Alpha-Beta pruning,Artificial Intelligence6(4) (1975) 293–326.Google Scholar
60. [158]
Nau, D.S., An investigation of the causes of pathology in games, Technical Report TR-999, Computer Science Department, University
of Maryland, 1981.Google Scholar
61. [159]
Nau, D.S., Pathology on game trees: a summary of results,Proceedings 1st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1980) 102–
104.Google Scholar
62. [160]
Nau, D.S., Pathology on game trees revisited and an alternative to minimaxing,Artificial Intelligence 21(1–2) (1983) 221–244.Google
Scholar
63. [161]
Newell, A., J.C. Shaw and H.A. Simon, Chess-playing programs and the problem of complexity,IBM Journal of Research and
Development 2 (1958) 320–355.Google Scholar
64. [162]
Nilsson, N.J., Searching problem solving and game-playing trees for minimal cost-solutions, in: A.J.H. Morrell, ed.,Information
Processing, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969, 1556–1562.Google Scholar
65. [163]
Pearl, J., Asymptotic properties of minimax trees and game searching procedures,Artificial Intelligence 14(2) (1980) 113–138.Google
Scholar
66. [164]
Pearl, J., On the nature of pathology in game searching,Artificial Intelligence 20(4) (1983) 427–453.Google Scholar
67. [165]
Pearl, J., The solution for the branching factor of the Alpha-Beta pruning algorithm and its optimality,Communications of ACM 25(8)
(1982) 559–564.Google Scholar
68. [166]
Roizen, I. and J. Pearl, A minimax algorithm better than Alpha-Beta? Yes and no,Artificial Intelligence 21(1–2) (1983) 199–
220.Google Scholar
69. [167]
Slagle, J.R. and J.K. Dixon, Experiments with some programs that search game trees,Journal of ACM 16(2) (1969) 189–207.Google
Scholar
70. [168]
Stockman, G., A minimax algorithm better than Alpha-Beta?Artificial Intelligence 12(2) (1979) 179–196.Google Scholar
71. [169]
Tarsi, M., Optimal search on some game trees,Journal of ACM 30(3) (1983) 389–396.Google Scholar
72. [170]
Verstraete, R., Models for game trees with independent terminal values, Technical Report UCLA-ENG-82-48, Cognitive Systems
Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles, 1982.Google Scholar
73. [171]
Berliner, H.J., A chronology of computer chess and its literature,Artificial Intelligence10(2) (1978) 201–214.Google Scholar
74. [172]
Kister, J., P. Stein, S. Ulam, W. Walden and M. Wells, Experiments in chess,Journal of ACM 4 (1957) 174–177.Google Scholar
75. [173]
Korf, R.E., A program that learns to solve Rubik's cube,Proceedings of the 2nd AAAI Conference, Pittsburg, PA, 1982, 164–167.Google
Scholar
76. [174]
Levy, D. and M. Newborn,All About Chess and Computers, Computer Science Press, Rockville, MD, 1982.Google Scholar
77. [175]
Newell, A., J.C. Shaw and H.A. Simon, Chess-playing programs and the problem of complexity,IBM Journal of Research and
Development 2 (1958) 320–355.Google Scholar
78. [176]
Quinlan, J., Knowledge-based system for locating missing high cards in bridge,Proceedings of IJCAI 6 (1979) 705–707.Google Scholar
79. [177]
Samuel, A.L., Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers,IBM Journal of Research and Development 3 (1959) 211–
229.Google Scholar
80. [178]
Samuel, A.L., Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers II — recent progress,IBM Journal of Research and
Development 11(6) (1967) 601–617.Google Scholar
81. [179]
Shannon, C.E., Programming a computer for playing chess,Philosophical Magazine 41(7) (1950) 256–275.Google Scholar
82. [180]
83. [181]
1.
2. 182]
Baudet, G.M., On the branching factor of the Alpha-Beta pruning algorithm,Artificial Intelligence 10(2) (1978) 173–199.Google
Scholar
3. [183]
Bratko, J. and M. Gams, Error analysis of the minimax principle, in: M.R.B. Clarke, ed.,Advances in Computer Chess 3, Pergamon,
Elmsford, NY, 1982, 1–15.Google Scholar
4. [184]
Fuller, S.H., J. Gaschnig and J.J. Gillogly, An analysis of the Alpha-Beta pruning algorithm, Department of Computer Science Report,
Carnegie-Mellon University, 1973.Google Scholar
5. [185]
Knuth, D.E. and R.W. Moore, An analysis of the Alpha-Beta pruning,Artificial Intelligence6(4) (1975) 293–326.Google Scholar
6. [186]
Newborn, M., The efficiency of the Alpha-Beta search on trees with branch-dependent terminal node scores,Artificial Intelligence 8(2)
(1977) 137–153.Google Scholar
7. [187]
Noe, T., A comparison of the Alpha-Beta and SCOUT algorithms using the game of Kalah, Technical Report UCLA-ENG-80-17,
Cognitive Systems Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles, 1980.Google Scholar
8. [188]
Pearl, J., The solution for the branching factor of the Alpha-Beta pruning algorithm and its optimality,Communications of ACM 25(8)
(1982) 559–564.Google Scholar
9. [189]
Roizen, I., On the average number of terminal nodes examined by Alpha-Beta, Technical Report UCLA-ENG-81-01, Cognitive Systems
Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981.Google Scholar
10. [190]
Andrews, P.B., Theorem proving via general matings,Journal of ACM 28(2) (April 1981) 193–214.Google Scholar
11. [191]
Bibel, W., A comparative study of several proof procedures,Artificial Intelligence 18 (1982) 269–293.Google Scholar
12. [192]
Bibel, W.,Automated Theorem Proving, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1982.Google Scholar
13. [193]
Biermann, A.W., Automatic programming: a tutorial on formal methodologies,Journal of Symbolic Computation 1 (1985) 119–
142.Google Scholar
14. [194]
15. [195]
Bobrow, D.G., ed., Special issue on non-monotonic logic,Artificial Intelligence 13(1,2) (1980).Google Scholar
16. [196]
Boyer, R.S. and J.S. Moore,A Computational Logic, Academic Press, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
17. [197]
Chang, C.L. and R.C. Lee,Symbolic logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
18. [198]
Cohen, P.R. and E.A. Feigenbaum,The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. III, William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA, 1982.Google
Scholar
19. [199]
Davis, M. and H. Putnam, A computing procedure for quantification theory,Journal of ACM 7(3) (1960) 201–215.Google Scholar
20. [200]
Gelernter, H., Realization of a geometry theorem proving machine, in: E.A. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman, eds., Computers and
Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, 134–152.Google Scholar
21. [201]
Kowalski, R.A., A proof procedure using connection graphs,Journal of ACM 22 (1975) 572–595.Google Scholar
22. [202]
Lewis, H.R. and C.H. Papadimitriou,Elements of the Theory of Computation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981.Google
Scholar
23. [203]
Loveland, D.,Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.Google Scholar
24. [204]
Lusk, E.L. and R.A. Overbeck, Reasoning about equality,Journal of Automated Reasoning1 (1985) 209–228.Google Scholar
25. [205]
26. [206]
Manna, Z. and R. Waldinger,The Logical Basis for Computer Programming, Vol. 1: Deductive Reasoning, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA, 1985.Google Scholar
27. [207]
McCharen, J., R. Overbeck and L. Wos, Problems and experiments for and with automated theorem-proving programs,IEEE
Transactions on Computation C-25 (1976).Google Scholar
28. [208]
Newell, A. and H.A. Simon, The logic theory machine,IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2 (1956) 61–79.Google Scholar
29. [209]
Nilsson, N.J.,Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Tioga, Palo Alto, CA, 1980.Google Scholar
30. [210]
Parrelo, B.D., W.C. Kabat and L. Wos, Job-shop scheduling using automated reasoning: A case study of the car sequencing
problem,Journal of Automated Reasoning 2(1) (1986) 1–42.Google Scholar
31. [211]
Paul, E., Equational methods in first order predicate calculus,Journal of Symbolic Computation 1 (1985) 7–29.Google Scholar
32. [212]
Robinson, J.A.,Logic: Form and Function, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1979.Google Scholar
33. [213]
Siekmann, J. and G. Wrightson, eds.,Automation of Reasoning 1: Classical Papers on Computational Logic 1957–1966, Symbolic
Computation, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1983.Google Scholar
34. [214]
Siekmann, J. and G. Wrightson, eds.,Automation of Reasoning 2: Classical Papers on Computational Logic 1967–1970, Symbolic
Computation, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1983.Google Scholar
35. [215]
Wang, H., Towards mechanical mathematics,IBM Journal of Research and Development4 (1960) 2–22.Google Scholar
36. [216]
Wos, L., R. Overbeck, E. Lusk and J. Boyle,Automated Reasoning: Introduction and Applications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1984.Google Scholar
37. [217]
Wos, L., F. Pereira, R. Hong, R.S. Boyer, J.S. Moore, W.W. Bledsoe, L.J. Henschen, B.G. Buchanan, G. Wrightson and C. Green, An
overview of automated reasoning and related fields,Journal of Automated Reasoning 1 (1985) 5–48.Google Scholar
38. [218]
Wu, W.-T., Basic principles of mechanical theorem proving in elementary geometries,Journal of Automated Reasoning 2 (1986) 221–
252.Google Scholar
39. [219]
40. [220]
Gaschnig, J., A general backtrack algorithm that eliminates most redundant tests,Proceedings of the International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, MA (1977) 457.Google Scholar
41. [221]
Gaschnig, J., Performance measurement and analysis of certain search algorithms, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science ,
Carnegie-Mellon University (May, 1979).Google Scholar
42. [222]
Haralick, R.M., Scene analysis: homomorphism and arrangements, in: Hanson and Reisman, eds.,Machine Vision, Academic Press,
New York, 1978.Google Scholar
43. [223]
Haralick, R.M. and G.L. Elliott, Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems, Artificial Intelligence 14 (1980)
263–313.Google Scholar
44. [224]
Haralick, R.M. and J. Kartus, Arrangements, homomorphisms and discrete relaxation,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics SMC-8 (August 1978) 600–612.Google Scholar
45. [225]
Haralick, R.M. and L. Shapiro, The consistent labeling problem: PartI,IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence 1(2) (April 1979) 173–184.Google Scholar
46. [226]
Haralick, R.M. and L. Shapiro, The consistent labeling problem: Part II,IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence 2(3) (1980) 193–203.Google Scholar
47. [227]
Haralick, R.M., L.S. Davis, A. Rosenfeld and D.L. Milgram, Reduction operations for constraint satisfaction,Information Sciences 14
(1978) 199–219.Google Scholar
48. [228]
Kowalski, R.A., A proof procedure using connection graphs,Journal of ACM 22 (October 1975) 572–595.Google Scholar
49. [229]
Mackworth, A.K., Consistency in networks of relations,Artificial Intelligence 8(1) (1977) 99–118.Google Scholar
50. [230]
Mackworth, A.K. and E.C. Freuder, The complexity of some polynomial network consistency algorithms for constraint satisfactio n
problems,Artificial Intelligence 25 (1985) 65–74.Google Scholar
51. [231]
McGregor, J.J., Relational consistency algorithms and their applications in finding subgraph and graph isomorphisms, Information
Sciences 19 (1979) 229–250.Google Scholar
52. [232]
Mohr, R. and T.C. Henderson, Arc and path consistency revisisted,Artificial Intelligence28 (1986) 225–233.Google Scholar
53. [233]
Montanari, U., Networks of constraints: fundamental properties and applications to picture processing,Information Sciences 7 (1976)
95–132.Google Scholar
54. [234]
Nudel, B., Consistent-labeling problems and their algorithms: expected-complexities and theory-based heuristics,Artificial
Intelligence 21 (1983) 135–178.Google Scholar
55. [235]
Rosenfeld, A., R. Hummel and S. Zucker, Scene labeling by relaxation operations,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics SMC-6 (1976) 420–423.Google Scholar
56. [236]
Shapiro, L.G. and R.M. Haralick, Structural descriptions and inexact matching,IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence 3 (1981) 504–519.Google Scholar
57. [237]
Ullman, J.R., An algorithm for subgraph homomorphisms,Journal of ACM 23(1) (1976) 31–42.Google Scholar
58. [238]
Waltz, D.L., Generating semantic descriptions from drawings of scenes with shadows, MAC AI-TR-271, M.I.T. 1972.Google Scholar
59. [239]
Aspvall, B., M.F. Plass and R.E. Tarjan, A linear-time algorithm for testing the truth of certain quantified Boolean
formulas,Information Processing Letters 8 (1979) 121–123.Google Scholar
60. [240]
Balas, E. and J.N. Hooker, Applying polyhedral methods to logical inference, paper presented at the TIMS/ORSA meeting, New
Orleans, LA, May 1987.Google Scholar
61. [241]
Blair, C.E., R.G. Jeroslow and J.K. Lowe, Some results and experiments in programming techniques for propositi onal logic,Computers
and Operations Research 13(5) (1986) 633–645.Google Scholar
62. [242]
Bugrara, K. and C.A. Brown, On the average case analysis of some satisfiability model problems,Information Sciences 40 (1986) 21–
37.Google Scholar
63. [243]
Chang, C.L. and R.C. Lee,Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
64. [244]
Cook, S.A., The complexity of theorem-proving procedures,Proceedings 3rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (May 1971)
151–158.Google Scholar
65. [245]
Davis, M. and H. Putnam, A computing procedure for quantification theory,Journal of ACM 7 (1960) 201–215.Google Scholar
66. [246]
Desrosiers, J., B. Jaumard and L. Le Bars, Algorithms for the satisfiability problem, GERAD-HEC Research Report, to appear.Google
Scholar
67. [247]
Franco, J., Probabilistic analysis of the pure literal heuristic for the satisfiability problem,Annals of Operations Research 1 (1984)
273–289.Google Scholar
68. [248]
Franco, J., On the probabilistic performance of algorithms for the satisfiability problem,Information Processing Letters 23 (1986)
103–106.Google Scholar
69. [249]
Franco, J. and M. Paull, Probabilistic analysis of the Davis—Putman procedure for solving the satisfiability problem,Discrete Applied
Mathematics 5 (1983) 77–87.Google Scholar
70. [250]
Gallo, G. and G.P. Urbani, New algorithms for the satisfiability problem, Nota Scientifica 5-87-6, Dipartimen to Informatica,
Universitá di Pisa, March 1987.Google Scholar
71. [251]
Goldberg, A., P.W. Purdom and C.A. Brown, Average time analyses of simplified Davis—Putnam procedures,Information Processing
Letters 15(2, 6) (September 1982) 72–75 (Errata 16 (1983) 213).Google Scholar
72. [252]
Hammer, P.L. and S. Rudeanu,Boolean Methods in Operations Research and Related Areas, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg,
1968.Google Scholar
73. [253]
Hansen, P. and B. Jaumard, Algorithms for the maximum satisfiability problem, RUTCOR Research Report, Rutgers University,
November 1987.Google Scholar
74. [254]
Hansen, P., B. Jaumard and M. Minoux, A linear-expected time algorithm for deriving all logical conclusions implied by a set of
Boolean inequalities,Mathematical Programming34 (1986) 223–231.Google Scholar
75. [255]
Jeroslow, R.G., Ten lectures on mixed integer model formulations for logic-based decision support, Technical Report, College of
Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, March 1987 (to appear in theAnnals of Discrete Mathematics).Google Scholar
76. [256]
Johnson, D.S., Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems,Journal of Computer and System Sciences 9 (1976) 256–
278.Google Scholar
77. [257]
Karp, R.M., Reducibility among combinatorial problems, in: R.G. Miller and J.W. Thatcher, eds.,Complexity of Computer
Computations, Plenum press, New York (1972) 85–104.Google Scholar
78. [258]
Lieberherr, K.J., Algorithmic extremal problems in combinatorial optimization,Journal of Algorithms 3 (1982) 225–244.Google
Scholar
79. [259]
Lieberherr, K.J. and E. Specker, Complexity of partial satisfaction,Journal of ACM 28(2) (1981) 411–421.Google Scholar
80. [260]
81. [261]
Petreschi, R. and B. Simeone, A switching algorithm for the solution of quadratic Boolean equations,Information Processing
Letters 11 (1980) 193–198.Google Scholar
82. [262]
Purdom, P.W., Evaluating search methods analytically,Proceedings National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburg, PA
(1982) 124–127.Google Scholar
83. [263]
Purdom, P.W., Search rearrangement backtracking and polynomial average time,Artificial Intelligence 21 (1983) 117–133.Google
Scholar
84. [264]
Purdom, P.W. and C. Brown, The pure literal rule and polynomial average time,SIAM Journal of Computing 14(4) (November 1985)
943–953.Google Scholar
85. [265]
86. [266]
Schaefer, T.J., The complexity of satisfiability problems,Proceedings 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1978)
216–226.Google Scholar
87. [267]
88. [268]
Simeone, B., Consistency of quadratic Boolean equations and the König-Egerváry property for graphs,Annals of Discrete
Mathematics 25 (1985) 281–290.Google Scholar
89. [269]
Tovey, C.A., A simplified NP-complete satisfiability problem,Discrete Applied Mathematics 8 (1984) 85–89.Google Scholar
90. [270]
Arvind, V. and S. Biswas, An O(n 2) algorithm for the satisfiability problem of a subset of propositional sentences in CNF that includes
all Horn sentences,Information Processing Letters 24 (1987) 67–69.Google Scholar
91. [271]
Dowling, W.F. and J.H. Gallier, Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional Horn formulae,Journal of Logic
Programming 3 (1984) 267–284.Google Scholar
92. [272]
Henschen, L.J., Semantic resolution for Horn sets,IEEE Transactions on Computers25(8) (1976).Google Scholar
93. [273]
Henschen, L. and L. Wos, Unit refutations and Horn sets,Journal of ACM 21(4) (1974) 590–605.Google Scholar
94. [274]
Jaumard, B. and B. Simeone, On the complexity of the maximum satisfiability problem for Horn formulas,Information Processing
Letters 26 (1987/88) 1–4.Google Scholar
95. [275]
Jones, N.D. and W.T. Laaser, Complete problems for deterministic polynomial time,Theoret. Computer Science 3 (1976) 105–
117.Google Scholar
96. [276]
Lewis, H.R., Renaming a set of clauses as a Horn set,Journal of ACM 25(1) (January 1978) 134–135.Google Scholar
97. [277]
Mannila, H. and K. Mehlhorn, A fast algorithm for renaming a set of clauses as a Horn set,Information Processing Letters 21 (1985)
269–272.Google Scholar
98. [278]
Sykora, O., An optimal algorithm for renaming a set of clauses into the Horn set,Computer and Artificial Intelligence 4(1) (1985) 37–
43.Google Scholar
99. [279]
100. [280]
Yamasaki, S. and S. Doshita, The satisfiability problem for a class consisting of Horn sentences and some non-Horn sentences in
proportional (sic!) logic,Information and Control 59 (1983) 1–12.Google Scholar
101. [281]
Yamasaki, S., M. Yoshida, S. Doshita and M. Hirata, A new combination for input and unit deductions for Horn
sentences,Information Processing Letters 18 (1984) 209–213.Google Scholar
102. [282]
Dilger, W. and A. Janson, Intelligent backtracking in deduction systems by means of extended unification graphs,Journal of
Automated Reasoning 2 (1986) 43–62.Google Scholar
103. [283]
Eder, E., Properties of substitutions and unifications,Journal of Symbolic Computation 1 (1985) 31–46.Google Scholar
104. [284]
Fages, F. and G. Huet, Unification and matching in equational theories,CAAP 83, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 159, Springer-
Verlag, Heidelberg, 1983.Google Scholar
105. [285]
Martelli, A. and U. Montanari, An efficient unification algorithm,ACM Transactions on Programming Languages of Systems 4(2)
(1982) 258–282.Google Scholar
106. [286]
107. [287]
Paterson, M.S. and M.N. Wegman, Linear unification,Journal of Computers and System Sciences 16(1978) 158–167.Google Scholar
108. [288]
Apt, K.R. and M.H. Van Emden, Contributions to the theory of logic programming,Journal of ACM 29(3) (July 1982) 841–862.Google
Scholar
109. [289]
Balbin, I. and K. Lecot,Logic Programming: A Classified Bibliography, Wildgrass Books, Fitzroy, Australia, 1985.
1. [290]
Clark, K.L., Negation as failure, in: H. Gallaire and J. Minker, eds.,Logic and Databases, Plenum Press, New York, 1978, 293–
322.Google Scholar
2. [291]
Clark, K.L. and S.A. Tärnlund,Logic Programming, Academic Press, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
3. [292]
Clocksin, W.F. and C.S. Mellish,Programming in PROLOG, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1981.Google Scholar
4. [293]
Coelho, H. and L.M. Pereira, Automated reasoning in geometry theorem proving with PROLOG,Journal of Automated Reasoning 2(4)
(1986) 329–390.Google Scholar
5. [294]
Colmerauer, A., H. Hanoui, P. Russel and R. Pasero, Un système de communication homme-machine en Francais, Groupe de
Recherche en Intelligence Artificielle, Université d'Aix-Marseille, 1973.Google Scholar
6. [295]
Gabbay, D.M. and M.J. Sergot, Negation as inconsistency, Department of Computing Reports, Imperial College of Science and
Technology, London, England, 1984.Google Scholar
7. [296]
Gallaire, H. and J. Minker, eds.,Logic and Databases, Plenum Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
8. [297]
Gallier, J.H. and S. Raatz, Logic programming and graph rewriting, Research Report, Department of Computer and Information
Science, University of Pennsylvania, May 1985.Google Scholar
9. [298]
Hayes, P.J., Computation and deduction,Proceedings 2nd Symposium on Mathematical Foundation of Computer Science,
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences (1973) 105–118.Google Scholar
10. [299]
Hogger, C.J.,Introduction to Logic Programming, APIC Studies in Data Processing 21, Academic Press, New York, 1984.Google
Scholar
11. [300]
Jaffar, J., J.L. Lassez and J.W. Lloyd, Completeness of the negation as failure rule,Proceedings of IJCAI 8, 1983.Google Scholar
12. [301]
Kowalski, R.A., Predicate logic as a programming language, in: J.L. Rosenfeld, ed.,Information Processing 74, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1974, 569–574.Google Scholar
13. [302]
Kowalski, R.A., Algorithm = Logic + Control,Communications of ACM 22(7) (July 1979) 424–436.Google Scholar
14. [303]
Kowalski, R.A.,Logic for Problem Solving, Elsevier, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
15. [304]
Kowalski, R.A. and D. Kuehner, Linear resolution with selection function,Artificial Intelligence 2 (1970) 227–260.Google Scholar
16. [305]
Lloyd, J.W.,Foundations of Logic Programming, Symbolic Computation, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.Google Scholar
17. [306]
Pereira, L.M., Logic control with logic,Proceedings 1st International Logic Programming Conference, Luminy, France (September,
1982).Google Scholar
18. [307]
Robinson, J.A.,Logic: Form and Function, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1979.Google Scholar
19. [308]
Van Emden, M.H. and R.A. Kowalski, The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language,Journal of ACM 23(4) (1976) 733–
742.Google Scholar
20. [309]
Warren, D.H.D., L.M. Pereira and F. Pereira, PROLOG — the language and its implementation compared with LISP,Proceedings of
the Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Programming Languages (ACM); SIGPLAN Notices 12(8); andSIGART Newsletter 64
(1977) 109–115.Google Scholar
21. [310]
Warren, D.H.D. and M. Van Caneghem,Logic Programming and its Applications, Albex, Norwood, NJ, 1985.Google Scholar
22. [311]
Aho, A.V., C. Beeri and J.D. Ullman, The theory of joins in relational databases,ACM Transactions on Database Systems (4,3)
(September, 1979) 297–314.Google Scholar
23. [312]
Aho, A.V., Y. Sagiv and J.D. Ullman, Equivalence among relational expressions,SIAM Journal on Computing 8(2) (1979) 218–
246.Google Scholar
24. [313]
Asirelli, P., M. De Santis and A. Martelli, Integrity constraints in logic databases,Journal of Logic Programming 3 (1985) 221–
232.Google Scholar
25. [314]
Ausiello, G., A. D'Atri and D. Sacca, Graph algorithms for functional dependency manipulation,Journal of ACM 30(4) (1983) 752–
766.Google Scholar
26. [315]
Chandra, A.K. and D. Harel, Horn clause queries and generalizations,Journal of Logic Programming 1 (1985) 1–15.Google Scholar
27. [316]
Chang, C.L., Deduce 2: Further investigations of deductions in relational databases, in: H. Gallaire and J. Minker, eds., Logic and
Databases, Plenum Press, New York, 1978, 201–236.Google Scholar
28. [317]
Colmerauer, A. and J.F. Pique, About natural logic, in: H. Gallaire, J. Minker and J.M. Nicolas, eds.,Advances in Database Theory,
Vol. 1, Plenum Press, New York, 1981, 343–345.Google Scholar
29. [318]
Delobel, C. and R.G. Casey, Decomposition of a database and the theory of Boolean switching functions, IBM Journal of Research and
Development 17(5) (September 1973) 484–485.Google Scholar
30. [319]
Demolombe, R., Estimation of the number of triples satisfying a query expressed in predicate calculus language, Proceedings 6th
International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, IEEE, Montreal (October 1980) 55–63.Google Scholar
31. [320]
Fagin, R., Horn clauses and database dependencies,Journal of ACM 29(4) (1982) 952–985.Google Scholar
32. [321]
Gallaire, H., Impacts of logic on data bases,Proceedings 7th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (Cannes, France,
September 9–11), IEEE, New York (1981) 248–259.Google Scholar
33. [322]
Gallaire, H. and J. Minker,Logic and Databases, Plenum Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
34. [323]
Gallaire, H., J. Minker and J.M. Nicolas, Logic and databases: a deductive approach,Computing Surveys 16(2) (1984) 153–185.Google
Scholar
35. [324]
Gardarin, G. and M. Melkanoff, Proving consistency of database transactions,Proceedings 5th International Conference on Very
Large Data Bases (Rio de Janeiro, October 3–5), IEEE, New York (1979) 291–298.Google Scholar
36. [325]
Gray, P.,Logic, Algebra and Databases, Ellis Horwood Series on Computers and their Applications, Wiley, Chichester, 1984.Google
Scholar
37. [326]
Henschen, L.J., W.W. McCune and S.A. Naqvi, Compiling constraint checking programs from first order formulas, in: H. Gallaire , J.
Minker and J.M. Nicolas, eds.,Advances in Database Theory, Vol. 2, Plenum Press, New York, 1984, 145–169.Google Scholar
38. [327]
Jacobs, B.E., On database logic,Journal of ACM 29(2) (April 1982) 310–332.Google Scholar
39. [328]
Kellog, C., P. Klahr and L. Travis, Deductive planning and path finding for relational databases, in: H. Gallaire and J. Mink er,
eds.,Logic and Databases, Plenum Press, New York, 1978, 179–200.Google Scholar
40. [329]
Maier, D., A.O. Mendelzon and Y. Sagiv, Testing implications of data dependencies,ACM Transactions on Database Systems 4(4)
(1979) 455–469.Google Scholar
41. [330]
Maier, D., Y. Sagiv and M. Yannakakis, On the complexity of testing implications of functional and join dependencies,Journal of
ACM 28(4) (1981) 680–695.Google Scholar
42. [331]
Minker, J., An experimental relational data base system based on logic, in: H. Gallaire and J. Minker, eds.,Logic and Databases,
Plenum Press, New York, 1978, 107–147.Google Scholar
43. [332]
Naqvi, S.A. and L.J. Henschen, On compiling queries in recursive first order databases,Journal of ACM 31(1) (January 1984) 47–
85.Google Scholar
44. [333]
Reiter, R., Equality and domain closure in first order databases,Journal of ACM 27(2) (April 1980) 235–249.Google Scholar
45. [334]
Sacca, D., Closures of databases hypergraphs,Journal of ACM 32(4) (1985) 774–803.Google Scholar
46. [335]
Sagiv, Y., Quadratic algorithms for minimizing joins in restricted relational expressions,SIAM Journal on Computing 12(2) (1983)
316–328.Google Scholar
47. [336]
Sagiv, Y., An algorithm for inferring multivalued dependencies with an application to propositional logic,Journal of ACM 27(2) (1980)
250–262.Google Scholar
48. [337]
Sagiv, Y., C. Delobel, D.S. Parker and R. Fagin, An equivalence between relational database dependencies and a subclass of
propositional logic,Journal of ACM 28(3) (1981) 435–453.Google Scholar
49. [338]
Ullman, J.D.,Principles of Database Systems, 2nd ed., Computer Science Press, Potomac, MD, 1982.Google Scholar
50. [339]
Vardi, M.Y., The decision problem for database dependencies,Information Processing Letters 12(5) (1981) 251–254.Google Scholar
51. [340]
Warren, D.H.D., Efficient processing of interactive relational database queries expressed in logic,Proceedings 7th International
Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Cannes, France (1981) 272–281.Google Scholar
52. [341]
Fikes, R.E. and N.J. Nilsson, STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving, Artificial
Intelligence 2 (1971) 189–208.Google Scholar
53. [342]
Fikes, R.E., P.E. Hart and N.J. Nilsson, Learning and executing generalized robot plans,Artificial Intelligence 3 (1972) 251–
288.Google Scholar
54. [343]
Hax, A.C. and J.J. Golovin, Hierarchical production planning systems, in: A.C. Hax, ed.,Studies in Operations Management, North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.Google Scholar
55. [344]
Hayes-Roth, B. and F. Hayes-Roth, A cognitive model of planning,Cognitive Science 3 (1979) 275–310.Google Scholar
56. [345]
Hayes-Roth, B., A blackboard architecture for control,Artificial Intelligence 26 (1985) 251–321.Google Scholar
57. [346]
McDermott, D.V., Planning and action,Cognitive Science 2(2) (1978) 71–109.Google Scholar
58. [347]
Sacerdoti, E.D., Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spaces,Proceedings of IJCAI 3(1973) 412–422.Google Scholar
59. [348]
Sacerdoti, E.D., The nonlinear nature of plans,Proceedings of IJCAI 4 (1975) 206–294.Google Scholar
60. [349]
Sacerdoti, E.D.,A Structure for Plans and Behavior, Elsevier, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
61. [350]
Stefik, M., Planning with constraints (MOLGEN: part 1),Artificial Intelligence 16 (1981) 111–140.Google Scholar
62. [351]
Stefik, M., Planning with constraints (MOLGEN: part 2),Artificial Intelligence 16 (1981) 141–170.Google Scholar
63. [352]
Wilensky, R.,Planning and Understanding: A Computational Approach to Human Reasoning, Addison-Wesley, MA, 1983.Google
Scholar
64. [353]
Allen, J.F. and J.A. Koomen, Planning using a temporal world model,Proceedings of IJCAI 8 (1983) 742–747.Google Scholar
65. [354]
McDermott, D.V., A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans,Cognitive Science 6 (1982) 101–155.Google Scholar
66. [355]
Wilkins, D., Domain-independent planning: representation and plan generation,Artificial Intelligence 22 (1984) 269–301.Google
Scholar
67. [356]
Corkill, D.D. and V.R. Lesser, The use of meta-level control for coordination in a distributed problem solving,Proceedings of IJCAI
8 (1983) 748–756.Google Scholar
68. [357]
Davis, R. and R.G. Smith, Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem-solving,Artificial Intelligence 20 (1983) 63–109.Google
Scholar
69. [358]
Kornfeld, W.A., Combinatorially implosive algorithms,Communications of ACM 25(10) (October 1982) 734–738.Google Scholar
70. [359]
Lesser, V.R. and D.D. Corkill, Functionally-accurate, cooperative distributed systems,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics SMC-11(1) (1981) 81–96.Google Scholar
71. [360]
Carbonell, J.G., R.S. Michalski and T.M. Mitchell, An overview of machine learning, in: R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell and T.M.
Mitchell, eds.,Machine Learning, Tioga Press, Palo Alto, 1983, 3–23.Google Scholar
72. [361]
Farquhar, P.H., Application of utility theory in artificial intelligence research, in: Y. Sawaragi, ed. ,Multiple Criteria Decision-Making,
Springer-Verlag, New York, to appear.Google Scholar
73. [362]
Forsyth, R. and R. Dada,Machine Learning Applications in Expert Systems and Information Retrieval, Wiley, New York,
1986.Google Scholar
74. [363]
Langley, P., Learning to search: from weak methods to domain specific heuristics,Cognitive Science 9(2) (1985) 217–261.Google
Scholar
75. [364]
Michalski, R.S., J.G. Carbonell and T.M. Mitchell, eds.,Machine Learning, Vol. 1, Tioga, Palo Alto, CA, 1983.Google Scholar
76. [365]
Michalski, R.S., J.G. Carbonell and T.M. Mitchell, eds.,Machine Learning, Vol. 2, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1986.Google
Scholar
77. [366]
Mitchell, T.M., J.G. Carbonell and R.S. Michalski,Machine Learning: A Guide to Current Research, Academic Press, New York,
1986.Google Scholar
78. [367]
Breiman, L., J. Friedman, R. Olshun and C. Stone,Classification and Regression Trees, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1984.Google
Scholar
79. [368]
Fu, K.S., ed.,Applications of Pattern Recognition, CRC Press, Boca Ratón, FL, 1982.Google Scholar
80. [369]
Nandhakumar, N. and J.K. Aggarwal, The artificial intelligence approach to pattern recognition — a perspective and an
overview,Pattern Recognition 18(6) (1985) 383–389.Google Scholar
81. [370]
Quinlan, J.R., Inductive inference as a tool for the construction of high performance program, in: R. Michalski, J. Ca rbonell and T.M.
Mitchell, eds.,Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Tioga Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1984.Google Scholar
82. [371]
Quinlan, J.R., Induction of decision trees,Machine Learning 1(1) (1986) 81–106.Google Scholar
83. [372]
Holland, J.H., K.J. Holyoak, R.E. Nisbett and P.R. Thagard,Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning and Discovery, M.I.T. Press,
Bradford, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
84. [373]
Johnson, M.K. and L. Hasher, Human learning and memory, in: M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter, eds.,Annual Review of
Psychology, Stanford, CA, 1987, 631–638.Google Scholar
85. [374]
Laird, J.E., P.S. Rosenbloom and A. Newell, Chunking in SOAR: the anatomy of a general learning mechanism,Machine Learning 1(1)
(1986) 11–46.Google Scholar
86. [375]
⋆ Lenat, D., EURISKO: A program that learns new heuristics and domain concepts. The nature of heuristics III: program design and
results,Artificial Intelligence 21(1–2) (1983) 61–98.Google Scholar
87. [376]
88. [377]
Ackley, D.H. and G.E. Hinton, A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines,Cognitive Science 9 (1985) 147–169.Google Scholar
89. [378]
Feldman, J.A. and D.H. Ballard, Connectionist models and their properties,Cognitive Science 6 (1982) 205–254.Google Scholar
90. [379]
McClelland, J.L., D.E. Rumelhart and PDP Research Group, eds.,Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure
of Cognition, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
91. [380]
Grefenstette, J., ed.,Proceedings of the International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications, Pittsburgh, PA,
1985.Google Scholar
92. [381]
Holland, J.H.,Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 1975.Google Scholar
93. [382]
Smith, S.F., Adaptive learning systems, in: R. Forsyth, ed.,Expert Systems, Principles and Case Studies, Chapman and Hall, Ltd., New
York, 1984.Google Scholar
94. [383]
Buchanan, B.G., Research on expert systems,Machine Intelligence, Wiley, New York, 1982, 269–300.Google Scholar
95. [384]
Duda, R.O. and E.H. Shortliffe, Expert systems research,Science 220 (1983) 262–268.Google Scholar
96. [385]
Hayes-Roth, F., D.A. Waterman and D. Lenat, eds.,Building Expert Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1983.Google Scholar
97. [386]
Klahr, P., and D.A. Waterman, eds.,Expert Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
98. [387]
Michie, D., ed.,Expert Systems in the Micro-Electronic Age, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1980.Google Scholar
99. [388]
Reitman, W., ed.,Artificial Intelligence Applications for Business, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1984.Google Scholar
100. [389]
Stefik, M., J. Aikins, R. Balzer, J. Benoit, L. Birnbaum, F. Hayes-Roth and E.H. Sacerdoti, The organization of expert systems: a
tutorial,Artificial Intelligence 18 (1982) 135–173.Google Scholar
101. [390]
Waterman, D.A., ed.,A Guide to Expert Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
102. [391]
Weiss, S.M. and C.A. Kulikowski,A Practical Guide to Designing Expert Systems, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ, 1984.Google
Scholar
103. [392]
Winston, P.H. and K.A. Prendergast,The AI Business, M.I.T. Press, Bradford, MA, 1984.Google Scholar
104. [393]
Fischer, E.L., An AI-Based methodology for factory design,AI Magazine (Fall 1986) 72–85.Google Scholar
105. [394]
Fox, B.R. and K.G. Kempf, Opportunistic scheduling for robotic assembly,Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation, 1985, 880–889.Google Scholar
106. [395]
Fox, M.S. and S.F. Smith, ISIS: a knowledge-based system for factory scheduling,Expert Systems 1 (1984) 25–49.Google Scholar
107. [396]
Gilmore, J.F. and A.C. Semeco, Terrain navigation through knowledge-based route planning,Proceedings of IJCAI 9 (1985) 1086–
1088.Google Scholar
108. [397]
Goldstein, I.P. and R.B. Roberts, NUDGE — a knowledge-based scheduling program,Proceedings of IJCAI 5 (1977) 257–263.Google
Scholar
109. [398]
Kastner, J., C. Apte, J. Griesmier, S.J. Hong, M. Karnaugh, E. Mays and Y. Tozawa, A knowledge-based consultant for financial
marketing,AI Magazine 7(5) (Winter 1986) 71–79.Google Scholar
110. [399]
Lynch, F., C. Marshall, D.E. O'Connor and M. Kiskiel, AI in manufacturing at Digital,AI Magazine 7(5) (Winter 1986) 53–57.Google
Scholar
111. [400]
⋆ McDermott, D., A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans,Cognitive Science 6 (1982) 101–155.Google Scholar
112. [401]
Miller, D., R.J. Firby and T. Dean, Deadlines, travel time and robot problem solving,Proceedings of IJCAI 9 (1985) 1052–1054.Google
Scholar
113. [402]
Murphy, F.H. and E.A. Stohr, An intelligent system for formulating linear programs,Decision Support Systems 2(1) (March 1986) 39–
47.Google Scholar
114. [403]
O'Connor, D.E., Using expert systems to manage change and complexity in manufacturing, in: W. Reitman, ed., Artificial Intelligence
Applications for Business, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1984.Google Scholar
115. [404]
Orciuch, E. and J. Frost, ISA: an intelligent scheduling assistant,IEEE Computer Society, Proceedings 1st Conference on AI
Applications, 1984.Google Scholar
116. [405]
Ow, P.S. and S.F. Smith, Viewing scheduling as an opportunistic problem-solving process,this volume.Google Scholar
117. [406]
⋆ Paul. R.J. and G.I. Doukidis, Further developments in the use of artificial intelligence techniques which formulate simulation
problems,Journal of the Operational Research Society 37(8) (1986) 787–810.Google Scholar
118. [407]
Sathi, A., T.E. Morton and S.F. Roth, Callisto: an intelligent project management system,AI Magazine 7(5) (Winter 1986) 34–
52.Google Scholar
119. [408]
Scarl, E., Applications of a non-rule knowledge-based system to NASA scheduling and monitoring problems,IECEC Proceedings San
Francisco (August 1984).Google Scholar
120. [409]
Smith, S.F., M.S. Fox and P.S. Ow, Constructing and maintaining detailed production plans: investigations into the development of
knowledge-based factory scheduling systems,AI Magazine (Fall 1986) 45–61.Google Scholar
121. [410]
Sugie, M., D. Menzilcioglu and H.T. Kung, CAR guide — onboard computer for automobile route guidance,Proceedings National
Computer Conference, 1984, 695–706.Google Scholar
122. [411]
Tonge, F.M., Summary of a heuristic line balancing procedure, in: E.A. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman, eds., Computers and Thought,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
123. [412]
Buchanan, B.G. and E.A. Feigenbaum, DENDRAL and META-DENDRAL,Artificial Intelligence 11 (1978) 5–24.Google Scholar
124. [413]
Engelmore, R. and A. Terry, Structure and function of the CRYSALIS system,Proceedings of IJCAI 6 (1979) 250–256.Google Scholar
125. [414]
Erman, L.D., F. Hayes-Roth, V.R. Lesser and D.R. Reddy, The HEARSAY-II speech understanding system: integrating knowledge to
resolve uncertainty,Computing Surveys12(2) (June 1980) 213–253.Google Scholar
126. [415]
McCracken, D., Representation and efficiency in a production system for speech understanding,Proceedings of IJCAI 6 (1979) 556–
561.Google Scholar
127. [416]
Campbell, A., V. Hollister, R.O. Duda and P.E. Hart, Recognition of a hidden mineral deposit by an artificial intelligence
program,Science 217 (1982) 927–929.Google Scholar
128. [417]
Davis, R., H. Austin, I. Carlbom, B. Frawley, P. Pruchnik, R. Sneiderman and J. Gilreath, The DIPMETER ADVISOR
system,Proceedings of IJCAI 8 (1983) 122–129.Google Scholar
129. [418]
Descotte, Y. and J.C. Latombe, GARI: a problem solver that plans how to machine mechanical parts,Proceedings of IJCAI 7 (1981)
776–772.Google Scholar
130. [419]
Gallanti, M., G. Guida, L. Spampinato and A. Stefanini, Representing procedural knowledge in expert systems: an application to
process control,Proceedings of IJCAI 9(1985) 345–352.Google Scholar
131. [420]
Geneseretti, M.R., The use of design descriptions in automated diagnosis,Artificial Intelligence 24 (1984) 411–436.Google Scholar
132. [421]
Konolige, K., An inference net compiler for the PROSPECTOR rule-based consultation system,Proceedings of IJCAI 6 (1979) 487–
489.Google Scholar
133. [422]
Weiss, S., C. Kulikowski, C. Apte, M. Uschold, J. Patchette, R. Brigham and B. Spitzer, Building expert systems for controlli ng complex
programs,Proceedings of NCAI 2, Pittsburgh, PA, 1982, 322–326.Google Scholar
134. [423]
Buchanan, B.G. and E.H. Shortliffe, (eds.),Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic
Programming Project, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
135. [424]
Clancey, W.J. and R. Letsinger, NEOMYCIN: reconfiguring a rule-based expert system for application to teaching,Proceedings of
IJCAI 7 (1981) 829–836.Google Scholar
136. [425]
Frienland, P., Knowledge-based experiment design in molecular genetics,Proceedings of IJCAI 6 (1979) 285–288.Google Scholar
137. [426]
Shortliffe, E.H., A.C. Scott, M.B. Bischoff, A.B. Campbell, W. Van Mellerd and C.D. Jacobs, ONCOCIN: an expert system for onc ology
protocol management,Proceedings of IJCAI 7 (1981) 876–881.Google Scholar
138. [427]
Balzer, R., L. Erman, P. London and C. Williams, HEARSAY-III: a domain-independent framework for expert systems,Proceedings of
NCAI 1 (August 1980) 108–110.Google Scholar
139. [428]
Feigenbaum, E.A., B.G. Buchanan and J. Lederberg, On generality and problem solving: a case study using the DENDRAL program,
in: B. Meltzer and D. Michie, eds.,Machine Intelligence 6, Elsevier, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
140. [429]
Neches, R., W.R. Swartout and J. Moore, Explainable (and maintainable) expert systems,Proceedings of IJCAI 9 (1985) 382–
389.Google Scholar
141. [430]
Nii, H.P., J.J. Anton, E.A. Feigenbaum and A.J. Rockmore, Signal-to-symbol transformation: HASP/SIAP case study,AI
Magazine (1982) 23–35.Google Scholar
142. [431]
Ow, P.S. and S.F. Smith, Two design principles for knowledge-based systems,Decision Sciences (July 1987).Google Scholar
143. [432]
Quinlan, J., Knowledge-based system for locating missing high cards in bridge,Proceedings of IJCAI 6 (1979) 705–707.Google Scholar
144. [433]
Swartout, W.R., Explaining and justifying expert consulting programs,Proceedings of IJCAI 7 (1981) 815–823.Google Scholar
145. [434]
Bachant, J. and J. McDermott, R1 revisited: four years in the trenches,AI Magazine (Fall 1984) 21–32.Google Scholar
146. [435]
McDermott, J., R1's formative years,AI Magazine 2(2) (Summer 1981) 21–29.Google Scholar
147. [436]
McDermott, J., R1: a rule-based configurer of computer systems,Artificial Intelligence19(1) (September 1982) 39–88.Google Scholar
148. [437]
McDermott, J., Domain knowledge and the design process,Design Studies 3(1) (January 1982).Google Scholar
149. [438]
Polit, S., R1 and beyond: technology transfer at DEC,AI Magazine (Winter 1985) 76–78.Google Scholar
150. [439]
Rosenbloom, P.S., J.E. Laird, J. McDermott, A. Newell and E. Orciuch, R1-SOAR: an experiment in knowledge-intensive programming
in a problem-solving architecture,IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 7(5) (1985) 561–569.Google
Scholar
151. [440]
Scown, S.J.,The Artificial Intelligence Experience: An Introduction, Digital Equipment Corporation, 1985.Google Scholar
152. [441]
Van de Brug, A., J. Bachant and J. McDermott, The taming of R1,IEEE Expert (Fall 1986) 33–39.Google Scholar
153. [442]
Bonissone, P.P., Plausible reasoning: coping with uncertainty in expert systems, in: S.C. Shapiro, ed.,Encyclopedia of Artificial
Intelligence, Wiley, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
154. [443]
Cheeseman, P., In defense of probability,Proceedings of 9th International Joint Conference on AI, Los Angeles, CA, 1985.Google
Scholar
155. [444]
Henrion, M., Uncertainty in artificial intelligence: is probability epistemologically and heuristically adequate?Expert Systems and
Expert Judgement, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Porto, Portugal, August 1986.Google Scholar
156. [445]
Kanal, L.N. and J. Lemmer, eds.,Uncertainty in AI, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.Google Scholar
157. [446]
Spiegelhalter, D.J., A statistical view of uncertainty in expert systems, in: W. Gale, ed.,AI and Statistics, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA, 1986, 17–55.Google Scholar
158. [447]
Duda, R.O., P.E. Hart and N.J. Nilsson, Subjective Bayesian methods for rule-based inference systems,AFIPS Conference Proceedings,
New York, June 1976, 1075–1082.Google Scholar
159. [448]
Jeroslow, R.G., On monotone chaining procedures of the CF type, Technical Report, College of Management, Georgia Institute of
Technology, 1985.Google Scholar
160. [449]
Negoita, C.V.,Expert Systems and Fuzzy Systems, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Menlo Park, CA, 1985.Google Scholar
161. [450]
Pearl, J., Fusion, propagation, and structuring belief networks,Artificial Intelligence 29(3) (September 1986) 241–288.Google Scholar
162. [451]
Shafer, G.,A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press. Princeton, 1976.Google Scholar
163. [452]
Shachter, R.D., Evaluating influence diagrams,Operations Research (to appear in 1987).Google Scholar
164. [453]
Shortliffe, E.H. and B.G. Buchanan, A model of inexact reasoning in medicine, in: B.G. Buchanan and E.H. Shortliffe, eds., Rule-Based
Expert Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1984, 233–262.Google Scholar
165. [454]
Zadeh, L.A., Making computers think like people,IEEE Spectrum (August 1984) 26–32.Google Scholar
166. [455]
Tong, R.M. and D.G. Shapiro, Experimental investigations of uncertainty in a rule-based system for information
retrieval,International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 17 (March 1985) 265–282.Google Scholar
167. [456]
Wise, B., An experimental comparison of uncertain inference systems, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Engineering and Public Polic y,
Carnegie-Mellon University, 1986.Google Scholar
168. [457]
Yadrick, R.M., D.S. Vaughan, B.M. Perrin, P.D. Kempf and K.G. Kempf, Evaluation of uncertain interference models I:
PROSPECTOR,2nd Workshop on Uncertainty AAAI, 1986.