The problem of on-line planning in partially observable settings involves two problems: keeping track of beliefs about the environment and selecting actions for achieving goals. While the two problems are computationally intractable in the worst case, significant progress has been achieved in recent years through the use of suitable reductions. In particular, the state-of-the-art CLG planner is based on a translation that maps deterministic partially observable problems into fully observable non-deterministic ones. The translation, which is quadratic in the number of problem fluents and gets rid of the belief tracking problem, is adequate for most benchmarks, and it is in fact complete for problems that have width 1. The more recent K-replanner uses translations that are linear, one for keeping track of beliefs and the other for selecting actions using off-the-shelf classical planners. As a result, the K-replanner scales up better but it is not as general. In this work, we combine the benefits of the two approaches - the scope of the CLG planner and the efficiency of the Kreplanner. The new planner, called LW1, is based on a translation that is linear but complete for width-1 problems. The scope and scalability of the new planner is evaluated experimentally by considering the existing benchmarks and new problems.

Planning in hybrid domains is an important and challenging task, and various planning algorithms have been proposed in the last years. From an abstract point of view, hybrid planning domains are based on hybrid automata, which have been studied intensively in the model checking community. In particular, powerful model checking algorithms and tools have emerged for this formalism. However, despite the quest for more scalable planning approaches, model checking algorithms have not been applied to planning in hybrid domains so far. In this paper, we make a first step in bridging the gap between these two worlds. We provide a formal translation scheme from PDDL+ to the standard formalism of hybrid automata, as a solid basis for using hybrid system model-checking tools for dealing with hybrid planning domains. As a case study, we use the SpaceEx model checker, showing how we can address PDDL+ domains that are out of the scope of state-of-the-art planners.

We consider the problem of constructing a symbolic description of a continuous, low-level environment for use in planning. We show that symbols that can represent the preconditions and effects of an agent's actions are both necessary and sufficient for high-level planning. This eliminates the symbol design problem when a representation must be constructed in advance, and in principle enables an agent to autonomously learn its own symbolic representations. The resulting representation can be converted into PDDL, a canonical high-level planning representation that enables very fast planning.

In this paper we study when an LTL formula on finite traces (LTLf formula) is insensitive to infiniteness, that is, it can be correctly handled as a formula on infinite traces under the assumption that at a certain point the infinite trace starts repeating an end event forever, trivializing all other propositions to false. This intuition has been put forward and (wrongly) assumed to hold in general in the literature. We define a necessary and sufficient condition to characterize whether an LTLf formula is insensitive to infiniteness, which can be automatically checked by any LTL reasoner. Then, we show that typical LTLf specification patterns used in process and service modeling in CS, as well as trajectory constraints in Planning and transition-based LTLf specifications of action domains in KR, are indeed very often insensitive to infiniteness. This may help to explain why the assumption of interpreting LTL on finite and on infinite traces has been (wrongly) blurred. Possibly because of this blurring, virtually all literature detours to Buechi automata for constructing the NFA that accepts the traces satisfying an LTLf formula. As a further contribution, we give a simple direct algorithm for computing such NFA.

We introduce Dramatis, a computational model of suspense based on a reformulation of a psychological definition of the suspense phenomenon. In this reformulation, suspense is correlated with the audience’s ability to generate a plan for the protagonist to avoid an impending negative outcome. Dramatis measures the suspense level by generating such a plan and determining its perceived likelihood of success. We report on three evaluations of Dramatis, including a comparison of Dramatis output to the suspense reported by human readers, as well as ablative tests of Dramatis components. In these studies, we found that Dramatis output corresponded to the suspense ratings given by human readers for stories in three separate domains.

Game designs often center on the game mechanics - rules governing the logical evolution of the game. We seek to develop an intelligent system that generates computer games. As first steps towards this goal we present a composable and cross-domain representation for game mechanics that draws from AI planning action representations. We use a constraint solver to generate mechanics subject to design requirements on the form of those mechanics - what they do in the game. A planner takes a set of generated mechanics and tests whether those mechanics meet playability requirements - controlling how mechanics function in a game to affect player behavior. We demonstrate our system by modeling and generating mechanics in a role-playing game, platformer game, and combined role-playing-platformer game.

In this paper, we discuss a computational approach to the cognitivetask of social planning. First, we specify a class of planningproblems that involve an agent who attempts to achieve its goalsby altering other agents' mental states. Next, we describe SFPS,a flexible problem solver that generates social plans of this sort,including ones that include deception and reasoning about otheragents' beliefs. We report the results for experiments on socialscenarios that involve different levels of sophistication and thatdemonstrate both SFPS's capabilities and the sources of its power.Finally, we discuss how our approach to social planning has beeninformed by earlier work in the area and propose directions foradditional research on the topic.

Agents with incomplete environment models are likely to be surprised, and this represents an opportunity to learn. We investigate approaches for situated agents to detect surprises, discriminate among different forms of surprise, and hypothesize new models for the unknown events that surprised them. We instantiate these approaches in a new goal reasoning agent (named FoolMeTwice), investigate its performance in simulation studies, and report that it produces plans with significantly reduced execution cost in comparison to not learning models for surprising events.

The Ninth Annual AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE) was held October 14–18, 2013, at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. The mission of the AIIDE conference is to provide a forum for researchers and game developers to discuss ways that AI can enhance games and other forms of interactive entertainment. In addition to presentations on adapting standard AI techniques such as search, planning and machine learning for use within games, key topic areas include creating realistic autonomous characters, interactive narrative, procedural content generation, and integrating AI into game design and production tools.

Planning as Satisfiability is an important approach to Propositional Planning. A serious drawback of the method is its limited scalability, as the instances that arise from large planning problems are often too hard for modern SAT solvers. This work tackles this problem by combining two powerful techniques that aim at decomposing a planning problem into smaller subproblems, so that the satisfiability instances that need to be solved do not grow prohibitively large. The first technique, incremental goal achievement, turns planning into a series of boolean optimization problems, each seeking to maximize the number of goals that are achieved within a limited planning horizon. This is coupled with a second technique, called heuristic guidance, that directs search towards a state which satisfies all goals.