In this article we review the 2011 International Planning Competition. We give an overview of the history of the competition, discussing how it has developed since its first edition in 1998. The 2011 competition was run in three main separate tracks: the deterministic (classical) track; the learning track; and the uncertainty track. Each track proposed its own distinct set of new challenges and the participants rose to these admirably, the results of each track showing promising progress in each area. The competition attracted a record number of participants this year, showing its continued and strong position as a major central pillar of the international planning research community.

This report summarizes the conference and related activities. For the first time in AIIDE's history, the main program of the conference was preceded by three workshops: Intelligent Narrative Technologies workshop, the workshop on Nonplayer Character AI, and the Artificial Intelligence in the Game Design Process workshop. All three attracted a substantial audience and led to exciting debates and fruitful discussions (figure 1). In total, 24 papers were presented in the three workshops. The Intelligent Narrative Technologies workshop included papers on story representation, dialogue generation, narrative visualization, and authoring interfaces for interactive narrative, and a panel on corpus-based approaches to modeling narrative.

On the day before the exhibition the participants convened a workshop of 18 short talks. Each track's exhibitors presented a summary of their exhibit. In addition, four guest speakers provided a broader context for all of the exhibitors' efforts. The first guest speaker was the National Science Foundation's Sven Koenig, who highlighted several federal programs that support projects in embodied intelligence. Koenig also provided insights into some of these program's specific priorities, such as international collaborations and educational engagement.

Of course, this is far from the first attempt to plot a course toward human-level AGI: arguably this was the goal of the founders of the field of artificial intelligence in the 1950s, and has been pursued by a steady stream of AI researchers since, even as the majority of the AI field has focused its attention on more narrow, specific subgoals. The ideas presented here build on the ideas of others in innumerable ways, but to review the history of AI and situate the current effort in the context of its predecessors would require a much longer article than this one. Thus we have chosen to focus on the results of our AGI roadmap discussions, acknowledging in a broad way the many debts owed to many prior researchers. References to the prior literature on evaluation of advanced AI systems are given by Laird (Laird et al. 2009) and Geortzel and Bugaj (2009), which may in a limited sense be considered prequels to this article. We begin by discussing AGI in general and adopt a pragmatic goal for measuring progress toward its attainment. An initial capability landscape for AGI The heterogeneity of general intelligence in will be presented, drawing on major themes from humans makes it practically impossible to develop developmental psychology and illuminated by a comprehensive, fine-grained measurement system mathematical, physiological, and informationprocessing for AGI. While we encourage research in defining perspectives. The challenge of identifying such high-fidelity metrics for specific capabilities, appropriate tasks and environments for measuring we feel that at this stage of AGI development AGI will be taken up. Several scenarios will a pragmatic, high-level goal is the best we can be presented as milestones outlining a roadmap agree upon. I advocate beginning with a system that has minimal, although extensive, built-in capabilities. Many variant approaches have been proposed A classic example of the narrow AI approach was for achieving such a goal, and both the AI and AGI IBM's Deep Blue system (Campbell, Hoane, and communities have been working for decades on Hsu 2002), which successfully defeated world chess the myriad subgoals that would have to be champion Gary Kasparov but could not readily achieved and integrated to deliver a comprehensive apply that skill to any other problem domain without AGI system.

The reports should address the following questions: 1. When and why did the competition start? How many times has the competition been held since its inception? How frequently is the competition held and is it colocated with other events?

Machine learning research is often conducted in vitro, divorced from motivating practical applications. A researcher might develop a new method for the general task of classification, then assess its utility by comparing its performance (such as accuracy or AUC) to that of existing classification models on publicly available datasets. In terms of advancing machine learning as an academic discipline, this approach has thus far proven quite fruitful. However, it is our view that the most interesting open problems in machine learning are those that arise during its application to real-world problems. We illustrate this point by reviewing two of our interdisciplinary collaborations, both of which have posed unique machine learning problems, providing fertile ground for novel research.

Collaborative filtering is a rapidly advancing research area. Every year several new techniques are proposed and yet it is not clear which of the techniques work best and under what conditions. In this paper we conduct a study comparing several collaborative filtering techniques -- both classic and recent state-of-the-art -- in a variety of experimental contexts. Specifically, we report conclusions controlling for number of items, number of users, sparsity level, performance criteria, and computational complexity. Our conclusions identify what algorithms work well and in what conditions, and contribute to both industrial deployment collaborative filtering algorithms and to the research community.

We study the problem of identifying the top $m$ arms in a multi-armed bandit game. Our proposed solution relies on a new algorithm based on successive rejects of the seemingly bad arms, and successive accepts of the good ones. This algorithmic contribution allows to tackle other multiple identifications settings that were previously out of reach. In particular we show that this idea of successive accepts and rejects applies to the multi-bandit best arm identification problem.

Soft sets, as a mathematical tool for dealing with uncertainty, have recently gained considerable attention, including some successful applications in information processing, decision, demand analysis, and forecasting. To construct new soft sets from given soft sets, some operations on soft sets have been proposed. Unfortunately, such operations cannot keep all classical set-theoretic laws true for soft sets. In this paper, we redefine the intersection, complement, and difference of soft sets and investigate the algebraic properties of these operations along with a known union operation. We find that the new operation system on soft sets inherits all basic properties of operations on classical sets, which justifies our definitions.

Orseau and Ring, as well as Dewey, have recently described problems, including self-delusion, with the behavior of agents using various definitions of utility functions. An agent's utility function is defined in terms of the agent's history of interactions with its environment. This paper argues, via two examples, that the behavior problems can be avoided by formulating the utility function in two steps: 1) inferring a model of the environment from interactions, and 2) computing utility as a function of the environment model. Basing a utility function on a model that the agent must learn implies that the utility function must initially be expressed in terms of specifications to be matched to structures in the learned model. These specifications constitute prior assumptions about the environment so this approach will not work with arbitrary environments. But the approach should work for agents designed by humans to act in the physical world. The paper also addresses the issue of self-modifying agents and shows that if provided with the possibility to modify their utility functions agents will not choose to do so, under some usual assumptions.