Combining Associational and Causal Reasoning to Solve Interpretation and Planning Problems

This report describes a paradigm for combining associational and causal reasoning to achieve efficient and robust problem-solving behavior. The Generate, Test and Debug (GTD) paradigm generates initial hypotheses using associational (heuristic) rules. The tester verifies hypotheses, supplying the debugger with causal explanations for bugs found if the test fails. The debugger uses domain-independent causal reasoning techniques to repair hypotheses, analyzing domain models and the causal explanations produced by the tester to determine how to replace faulty assumptions made by the generator. We analyze the strengths and weaknesses of associational and causal reasoning techniques, and present a theory of debugging plans and interpretations. The GTD paradigm has been implemented and tested in the domains of geologic interpretation, the blocks world, and Tower of Hanoi problems.

In Praise of Folly: International Administration and the Corruption of Humanity

Bain, William, 'In Praise of Folly: International Administration and the Corruption of Humanity', International Affairs, (2006) 82(3) pp.525-538 RAE2008

Internal War, International Mediation and Non-Official Diplomacy: Lessons from Mozambique

Jackson, R. (2005). Internal War, International Mediation and Non-Official Diplomacy: Lessons from Mozambique. Journal of Conflict Studies. 25(1), pp.153-76 RAE2008

Developments among International Scientific and Health Bodies on Dual-Use Issue

Presentation at the Controlling Dangerous Pathogens Project Regional Workshop on Dual-Use Research, Teresopolis, Brazil

Missing the targets and being misunderstood: Child phonology and interactive problems

Effects of vowel variation on interaction are considered, with particular relevance to their role in conversational breakdown. The effect of speaker knowledge and experience is noted as a variable in developmental progress which must inform profiling decisions, and the need for appropriate taxonomies of speech varieties is emphasized as a precursor to clinical and educational assessments. It is noted, too, that a shared sociolinguistic background between speaker and listener does not always resolve difficulties arising from non-target realizations, casting some doubt on ideas that assessors always possess a guaranteed sense of phonological variability and its effects. Hence, an informed understanding of phonological variation, rather than merely awareness that such variation exists, is advocated.