If you are looking for an answer to the question What is Artificial Intelligence? and you only have a minute, then here's the definition the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence offers on its home page: "the scientific understanding of the mechanisms underlying thought and intelligent behavior and their embodiment in machines."
However, if you are fortunate enough to have more than a minute, then please get ready to embark upon an exciting journey exploring AI (but beware, it could last a lifetime) …
Morris, Robert (NASA) | Bonet, Blai (Universidad Simón Bolívar) | Cavazza, Marc (Teesside University) | desJardins, Marie (University of Maryland, Baltimore County) | Felner, Ariel (BenGurion University) | Hawes, Nick (University of Birmingham) | Knox, Brad (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | Koenig, Sven (University of Southern California) | Konidaris, George (Massachusetts Institute of Technology,) | Lang, Jérôme ((Université ParisDauphine) | López, Carlos Linares (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid) | Magazzeni, Daniele (King's College London) | McGovern, Amy (University of Oklahoma) | Natarajan, Sriraam (Indiana University) | Sturtevant, Nathan R. (University of Denver,) | Thielscher, Michael (University New South Wales) | Yeoh, William (New Mexico State University) | Sardina, Sebastian (RMIT University) | Wagstaff, Kiri (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
The Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-15) was held in January 2015 in Austin, Texas (USA) The conference program was cochaired by Sven Koenig and Blai Bonet. This report contains reflective summaries of the main conference, the robotics program, the AI and robotics workshop, the virtual agent exhibition, the what's hot track, the competition panel, the senior member track, student and outreach activities, the student abstract and poster program, the doctoral consortium, the women's mentoring event, and the demonstrations program.
Recently, it has been shown how to automatically translate any problem in NP, expressed in the language of second-order logic, into a STRIPS planning problem. In this work, we extend this translation by considering decision problems in the polynomial-time hierarchy (PH) and not just NP. Since decision problems in PH require in general exponentially-long “certificates”, the plans (if any) for the resulting STRIPS problems may have exponential length. Besides explaining the novel translations, we present experimental results and discuss the challenges that such problems pose.
Planning with partial observability can be formulated as a non-deterministic search problem in belief space. The problem is harder than classical planning as keeping track of beliefs is harder than keeping track of states, and searching for action policies is harder than searching for action sequences. In this work, we develop a framework for partial observability that avoids these limitations and leads to a planner that scales up to larger problems. For this, the class of problems is restricted to those in which 1) the non-unary clauses representing the uncertainty about the initial situation are nvariant, and 2) variables that are hidden in the initial situation do not appear in the body of conditional effects, which are all assumed to be deterministic. We show that such problems can be translated in linear time into equivalent fully observable non-deterministic planning problems, and that an slight extension of this translation renders the problem solvable by means of classical planners. The whole approach is sound and complete provided that in addition, the state-space is connected. Experiments are also reported.
Finite-state and memoryless controllers are simple action selection mechanisms widely used in domains such as video-games and mobile robotics. Memoryless controllers stand for functions that map observations into actions, while finite-state controllers generalize memoryless ones with a finite amount of memory. In contrast to the policies obtained from MDPs and POMDPs, finite-state controllers have two advantages: they are often extremely compact, involving a small number of controller states or none at all, and they are general, applying to many problems and not just one. A limitation of finite-state controllers is that they must be written by hand. In this work, we address this limitation, and develop a method for deriving finite-state controllers automatically from models. These models represent a class of contingent problems where actions are deterministic and some fluents are observable. The problem of deriving a controller from such models is converted into a conformant planning problem that is solved using classical planners, taking advantage of a complete translation introduced recently. The controllers derived in this way are 'general' in the sense that they do not solve the original problem only, but many variations as well, including changes in the size of the problem or in the uncertainty of the initial situation and action effects. Experiments illustrating the derivation of such controllers are presented.
Point-based algorithms and RTDP-Bel are approximate methods for solving POMDPs that replace the full updates of parallel value iteration by faster and more effective updates at selected beliefs. An important difference between the two methods is that the former adopt Sondik's representation of the value function, while the latter uses a tabular representation and a discretization function. The algorithms, however, have not been compared up to now, because they target different POMDPs: discounted POMDPs on the one hand, and Goal POMDPs on the other. In this paper, we bridge this representational gap, showing how to transform discounted POMDPs into Goal POMDPs, and use the transformation to compare RTDP-Bel with point-based algorithms over the existing discounted benchmarks. The results appear to contradict the conventional wisdom in the area showing that RTDP-Bel is competitive, and sometimes superior to point-based algorithms in both quality and time.
Bonet, Blai, Geffner, Hector
Long, Derek, Kautz, Henry, Selman, Bart, Bonet, Blai, Geffner, Hector, Koehler, Jana, Brenner, Michael, Hoffmann, Joerg, Rittinger, Frank, Anderson, Corin R., Weld, Daniel S., Smith, David E., Fox, Maria, Long, Derek
In 1998, the international planning community was invited to take part in the first planning competition, hosted by the Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems Conference, to provide a new impetus for empirical evaluation and direct comparison of automatic domain-independent planning systems. This article describes the systems that competed in the event, examines the results, and considers some of the implications for the future of the field.