Systematic Nonlinear Planning

This paper presents a simple, sound, complete, and systematic algorithm for domain independent STRIPS planning. Simplicity is achieved by starting with a ground procedure and then applying a general and independently verifiable, lifting transformation. Previous planners have been designed directly as lifted procedures. Our ground procedure is a ground version of Tate's NONLIN procedure. In Tate's procedure one is not required to determine whether a prerequisite of a step in an unfinished plan is guarnateed to hold in all linearizations. This allows Tate"s procedure to avoid the use of Chapman"s modal truth criterion. Systematicity is the property that the same plan, or partial plan, is never examined more than once. Systematicity is achieved through a simple modification of Tate's procedure.

Using Special-Purpose Computing to Examine Chaotic Behavior in Nonlinear Mappings

Studying chaotic behavior in nonlinear systems requires numerous computations in order to simulate the behavior of such systems. The Standard Map Machine was designed and implemented as a special computer for performing these intensive computations with high-speed and high-precision. Its impressive performance is due to its simple architecture specialized to the numerical computations required of nonlinear systems. This report discusses the design and implementation of the Standard Map Machine and its use in the study of nonlinear mappings; in particular, the study of the standard map.

Theories of Comparative Analysis

Comparative analysis is the problem of predicting how a system will react to perturbations in its parameters, and why. For example, comparative analysis could be asked to explain why the period of an oscillating spring/block system would increase if the mass of the block were larger. This thesis formalizes the task of comparative analysis and presents two solution techniques: differential qualitative (DQ) analysis and exaggeration. Both techniques solve many comparative analysis problems, providing explanations suitable for use by design systems, automated diagnosis, intelligent tutoring systems, and explanation based generalization. This thesis explains the theoretical basis for each technique, describes how they are implemented, and discusses the difference between the two. DQ analysis is sound; it never generates an incorrect answer to a comparative analysis question. Although exaggeration does occasionally produce misleading answers, it solves a larger class of problems than DQ analysis and frequently results in simpler explanations.