Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Connie Loggia Ramsey

dblp:15/4127 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 1999
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 2 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
3 papers
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 56% Reinforcement learning · 21% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 16%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 56% Requirements engineering and software design · 44%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
anytime algorithm
0.011992
An Approach to Anytime Learning · ML 1992
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
anytime learning
0.011992
An Approach to Anytime Learning · ML 1992
Requirements engineering and software design › knowledge management
knowledge acquisition
0.011989
An Evaluation of Expert Systems for Software Engineering Management · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1989
Empirical software engineering
software engineering management
0.011989
An Evaluation of Expert Systems for Software Engineering Management · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1989
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
expert systems
0.011986
A Comparative Analysis of Methods for Expert Systems · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1986
Empirical software engineering
software project management
0.011989
An Evaluation of Expert Systems for Software Engineering Management · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1989
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
knowledge-based systems
0.011986
A Comparative Analysis of Methods for Expert Systems · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1986

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

simulation · 0.0competitive learning · 0.0rule-based deduction · 0.0knowledge acquisition · 0.0frame-based abduction · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1999 Visual analysis of evolutionary algorithms
abstract
The non-linear complexity of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) make them a challenge to understand. The difficulty in performing detailed analyses of an EA is in sorting through the large amount of of data that can be generated in a single run. This paper describes a visualization tool that facilitates navigation through the details of an EA run. The visualization tool organizes and displays EA data at various levels of detail and allows for easy transitions between related pieces of data.
Annie S. Wu, Kenneth A. De Jong, Donald S. Burke, John J. Grefenstette, Connie Loggia Ramsey
CEC5
1998 Genome Length as an Evolutionary Self-adaptation
Connie Loggia Ramsey, Kenneth A. De Jong, John J. Grefenstette, Annie S. Wu, Donald S. Burke
PPSN1
1998 Putting More Genetics into Genetic Algorithms
abstract
The majority of current genetic algorithms (GAs), while inspired by natural evolutionary systems, are seldom viewed as biologically plausible models. This is not a criticism of GAs, but rather a reflection of choices made regarding the level of abstraction at which biological mechanisms are modeled, and a reflection of the more engineering-oriented goals of the evolutionary computation community. Understanding better and reducing this gap between GAs and genetics has been a central issue in an interdisciplinary project whose goal is to build GA-based computational models of viral evolution. The result is a system called Virtual Virus (VIV). VIV incorporates a number of more biologically plausible mechanisms, including a more flexible genotype-to-phenotype mapping. In VIV the genes are independent of position, and genomes can vary in length and may contain noncoding regions, as well as duplicative or competing genes. Initial computational studies with VIV have already revealed several emergent phenomena of both biological and computational interest. In the absence of any penalty based on genome length, VIV develops individuals with long genomes and also performs more poorly (from a problem-solving viewpoint) than when a length penalty is used. With a fixed linear length penalty, genome length tends to increase dramatically in the early phases of evolution and then decrease to a level based on the mutation rate. The plateau genome length (i.e., the average length of individuals in the final population) generally increases in response to an increase in the base mutation rate. When VIV converges, there tend to be many copies of good alternative genes within the individuals. We observed many instances of switching between active and inactive genes during the entire evolutionary process. These observations support the conclusion that noncoding regions serve as scratch space in which VIV can explore alternative gene values. These results represent a positive step in understanding how GAs might exploit more of the power and flexibility of biological evolution while simultaneously providing better tools for understanding evolving biological systems.
Donald S. Burke, Kenneth A. De Jong, John J. Grefenstette, Connie Loggia Ramsey, Annie S. Wu
Evol. Comput.4
1992 An Approach to Anytime Learning
John J. Grefenstette, Connie Loggia Ramsey
ML2
1990 Simulation-Assisted Learning by Competition: Effects of Noise Differences Between Training Model and Target Environment
Connie Loggia Ramsey, John J. Grefenstette, Alan C. Schultz
ML1
1990 Learning Sequential Decision Rules Using Simulation Models and Competition
John J. Grefenstette, Connie Loggia Ramsey, Alan C. Schultz
Mach. Learn.2
1989 BaRT: A Bayesian Reasoning Tool for Knowledge Based Systems
Lashon B. Booker, Naveen Hota, Connie Loggia Ramsey
UAI3
1989 An Evaluation of Expert Systems for Software Engineering Management
abstract
The development of four separate, prototype expert systems to aid in software engineering management is described. Given the values for certain metrics, these systems provide interpretations which explain any abnormal patterns of these values during the development of a software project. The four expert systems which solve the same problem, were built using two different approaches to knowledge acquisition, a bottom-up approach and a top-down approach and two different expert system methods, rule-based deduction and frame-based abduction. In a comparison to see which methods might better suit the needs of this field, it was found that the bottom-up approach led to better results that did the top-down approach, and the rule-based deduction systems using simple rules provided more complete and correct solutions than did the frame-based abduction systems.>
Connie Loggia Ramsey, Victor R. Basili
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
1986 A Comparative Analysis of Methods for Expert Systems
Connie Loggia Ramsey, James A. Reggia, Dana S. Nau, Andrew Ferrentino
Int. J. Man Mach. Stud.1