Inducing hierarchical process models in dynamic domains

Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 2, Issue , 2005, Pages 892-897

  Todorovski, Ljupčo ^a,b   Bridewell, Will ^a   Shiran, Oren ^a   Langley, Pat ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JO EF STEFAN INSTITUTE   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSTRAINT THEORY; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS;

DYNAMIC DOMAINS; HIERARCHICAL PROCESS MODELS; INDUCTIVE PROCESS MODELING;

HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS;

EID: 29344439679     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Arrigo, K.; Worthen, D.; and Robinson, D. 2003. A coupled ocean-ecosystem model of the Ross Sea. part 2: Iron regulation of phytoplankton taxonomic variability and primary production. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(C7):3231.
2. Asgharbeygi, N.; Bay, S.; Langley, P.; and Arrigo, K. in press. Inductive revision of quantitative process models. Ecological Modelling.
3. Bradley, E.; Easley, M.; and Stolle, R. 2001. Reasoning about nonlinear system identification. Artificial Intelligence 133:139-188.
4. Bunch, D.; Gay, D.; and Welsch, R. 1993. Algorithm 717: Subroutines for maximum likelihood and quasi-likelihood estimation of parameters in nonlinear regression models. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 19:109-130.
5. Chown, E., and Dietterich, T. 2000. A divide and conquer approach to learning from prior knowledge. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning, 143-150. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
6. DeJong, G. F., and Mooney, R. J. 1986. Explanation-based learning:An alternative view.Machine Learning 1:145-176.
7. Falkenhainer, B., and Forbus, K. D. 1991. Compositional modeling: Finding the right model for the job. Artificial Intelligence 51:95-143.
8. Forbus, K. D. 1984. Qualitative process theory. Artificial Intelligence 24:85-168.
9. Jost, C., and Ellner, S. 2000. Testing for predator dependence in predator-prey dynamics: A non-parametric approach. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267:1611-1620.
10. Langley, P.; Simon, H. A.; Bradshaw, G.; and Zytkow, J. M. 1987. Scientific Discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Langley, P.; George, D.; Bay, S.; and Saito, K. 2003. Robust induction of process models from time-series data. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Machine Learning, 432-439. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.
12. Nèdellec, C.; Rouveirol, C.; Adè, H.; Bergadano, F.; and Tausend, B. 1996, Declarative bias in ILP. In de Raedt, L., ed., Advances in Inductive Logic Programming. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 82-103.
13. Todorovski, L. 2003. Using domain knowledge for automated modeling of dynamic systems with equation discovery, Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
14. Williams, R., and Zipser, D. 1989. A learning algorithm for continually running fully recurrent neural networks. Neural Computation 1:270-280.
15. Żytkow, J. M.; Zhu, J.; and Hussam, A. 1990. Automated discovery in a chemistry laboratory, In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 889-894. Boston: AAAI Press.