We consider the problem of optimally composing a set of primitives to tackle control tasks. To address this problem, we introduce Neo-FREE: a control architecture inspired by the Thousand Brains Theory and Free Energy Principle from cognitive sciences. In accordance with the neocortical (Neo) processes postulated by the Thousand Brains Theory, Neo-FREE consists of functional units returning control primitives. These are linearly combined by a gating mechanism that minimizes the variational free energy (FREE). The problem of finding the optimal primitives' weights is then recast as a finite-horizon optimal control problem, which is convex even when the cost is not and the environment is nonlinear, stochastic, non-stationary. The results yield an algorithm for primitives composition and the effectiveness of Neo-FREE is illustrated via in-silico and hardware experiments on an application involving robot navigation in an environment with obstacles.

Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) present significant challenges to artificial intelligence due to their intricate constraints and the necessity for precise solutions. Existing symbolic solvers are often slow, and prior research has shown that Large Language Models (LLMs) alone struggle with CSPs because of their complexity. To bridge this gap, we build upon the existing SOFAI architecture (or SOFAI-v1), which adapts Daniel Kahneman's ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' cognitive model to AI. Our enhanced architecture, SOFAI-v2, integrates refined metacognitive governance mechanisms to improve adaptability across complex domains, specifically tailored for solving CSPs like graph coloring. SOFAI-v2 combines a fast System 1 (S1) based on LLMs with a deliberative System 2 (S2) governed by a metacognition module. S1's initial solutions, often limited by non-adherence to constraints, are enhanced through metacognitive governance, which provides targeted feedback and examples to adapt S1 to CSP requirements. If S1 fails to solve the problem, metacognition strategically invokes S2, ensuring accurate and reliable solutions. With empirical results, we show that SOFAI-v2 for graph coloring problems achieves a 16.98% increased success rate and is 32.42% faster than symbolic solvers.

Automated Planning and Scheduling is among the growing areas in Artificial Intelligence (AI) where mention of LLMs has gained popularity. Based on a comprehensive review of 126 papers, this paper investigates eight categories based on the unique applications of LLMs in addressing various aspects of planning problems: language translation, plan generation, model construction, multi-agent planning, interactive planning, heuristics optimization, tool integration, and brain-inspired planning. For each category, we articulate the issues considered and existing gaps. A critical insight resulting from our review is that the true potential of LLMs unfolds when they are integrated with traditional symbolic planners, pointing towards a promising neuro-symbolic approach. This approach effectively combines the generative aspects of LLMs with the precision of classical planning methods. By synthesizing insights from existing literature, we underline the potential of this integration to address complex planning challenges. Our goal is to encourage the ICAPS community to recognize the complementary strengths of LLMs and symbolic planners, advocating for a direction in automated planning that leverages these synergistic capabilities to develop more advanced and intelligent planning systems.

Nudging is a behavioral strategy aimed at influencing people's thoughts and actions. Nudging techniques can be found in many situations in our daily lives, and these nudging techniques can targeted at human fast and unconscious thinking, e.g., by using images to generate fear or the more careful and effortful slow thinking, e.g., by releasing information that makes us reflect on our choices. In this paper, we propose and discuss a value-based AI-human collaborative framework where AI systems nudge humans by proposing decision recommendations. Three different nudging modalities, based on when recommendations are presented to the human, are intended to stimulate human fast thinking, slow thinking, or meta-cognition. Values that are relevant to a specific decision scenario are used to decide when and how to use each of these nudging modalities. Examples of values are decision quality, speed, human upskilling and learning, human agency, and privacy. Several values can be present at the same time, and their priorities can vary over time. The framework treats values as parameters to be instantiated in a specific decision environment.

Automated planning is concerned with developing efficient algorithms to generate plans or sequences of actions to achieve a specific goal in a given environment. Emerging Large Language Models (LLMs) can answer questions, write high-quality programming code, and predict protein folding, showcasing their versatility in solving various tasks beyond language-based problems. In this paper, we aim to explore how LLMs can also be used for automated planning. To do so, we seek to answer four key questions. Firstly, we want to understand the extent to which LLMs can be used for plan generation. Secondly, we aim to identify which pre-training data is most effective in facilitating plan generation. Thirdly, we investigate whether fine-tuning or prompting is a more effective approach for plan generation. Finally, we explore whether LLMs are capable of plan generalization. By answering these questions, the study seeks to shed light on the capabilities of LLMs in solving complex planning problems and provide insights into the most effective approaches for using LLMs in this context.

The concept of Artificial Intelligence has gained a lot of attention over the last decade. In particular, AI-based tools have been employed in several scenarios and are, by now, pervading our everyday life. Nonetheless, most of these systems lack many capabilities that we would naturally consider to be included in a notion of "intelligence". In this work, we present an architecture that, inspired by the cognitive theory known as Thinking Fast and Slow by D. Kahneman, is tasked with solving planning problems in different settings, specifically: classical and multi-agent epistemic. The system proposed is an instance of a more general AI paradigm, referred to as SOFAI (for Slow and Fast AI). SOFAI exploits multiple solving approaches, with different capabilities that characterize them as either fast or slow, and a metacognitive module to regulate them. This combination of components, which roughly reflects the human reasoning process according to D. Kahneman, allowed us to enhance the reasoning process that, in this case, is concerned with planning in two different settings. The behavior of this system is then compared to state-of-the-art solvers, showing that the newly introduced system presents better results in terms of generality, solving a wider set of problems with an acceptable trade-off between solving times and solution accuracy.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been the subject of active research, significantly advancing the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP). From BERT to BLOOM, LLMs have surpassed state-of-the-art results in various natural language tasks such as question answering, summarization, and text generation. Many ongoing efforts focus on understanding LLMs' capabilities, including their knowledge of the world, syntax, and semantics. However, extending the textual prowess of LLMs to symbolic reasoning has been slow and predominantly focused on tackling problems related to the mathematical field. In this paper, we explore the use of LLMs for automated planning - a branch of AI concerned with the realization of action sequences (plans) to achieve a goal, typically executed by intelligent agents, autonomous robots, and unmanned vehicles. We introduce Plansformer; an LLM fine-tuned on planning problems and capable of generating plans with favorable behavior in terms of correctness and length with reduced knowledge-engineering efforts. We also demonstrate the adaptability of Plansformer in solving different planning domains with varying complexities, owing to the transfer learning abilities of LLMs. For one configuration of Plansformer, we achieve ~97% valid plans, out of which ~95% are optimal for Towers of Hanoi - a puzzle-solving domain.

Voting is used widely to identify a collective decision for a group of agents, based on their preferences. In this paper, we focus on evaluating and designing voting rules that support both the privacy of the voting agents and a notion of fairness over such agents. To do this, we introduce a novel notion of group fairness and adopt the existing notion of local differential privacy. We then evaluate the level of group fairness in several existing voting rules, as well as the trade-offs between fairness and privacy, showing that it is not possible to always obtain maximal economic efficiency with high fairness or high privacy levels. Then, we present both a machine learning and a constrained optimization approach to design new voting rules that are fair while maintaining a high level of economic efficiency. Finally, we empirically examine the effect of adding noise to create local differentially private voting rules and discuss the three-way trade-off between economic efficiency, fairness, and privacy. This paper appears in the special track on AI & Society.

Current AI systems lack several important human capabilities, such as adaptability, generalizability, self-control, consistency, common sense, and causal reasoning. We believe that existing cognitive theories of human decision making, such as the thinking fast and slow theory, can provide insights on how to advance AI systems towards some of these capabilities. In this paper, we propose a general architecture that is based on fast/slow solvers and a metacognitive component. We then present experimental results on the behavior of an instance of this architecture, for AI systems that make decisions about navigating in a constrained environment. We show how combining the fast and slow decision modalities allows the system to evolve over time and gradually pass from slow to fast thinking with enough experience, and that this greatly helps in decision quality, resource consumption, and efficiency.

One of the most remarkable things about the human moral mind is its flexibility. We can make moral judgments about cases we have never seen before. We can decide that pre-established rules should be broken. We can invent novel rules on the fly. Capturing this flexibility is one of the central challenges in developing AI systems that can interpret and produce human-like moral judgment. This paper details the results of a study of real-world decision makers who judge whether it is acceptable to break a well-established norm: ``no cutting in line.'' We gather data on how human participants judge the acceptability of line-cutting in a range of scenarios. Then, in order to effectively embed these reasoning capabilities into a machine, we propose a method for modeling them using a preference-based structure, which captures a novel modification to standard ``dual process'' theories of moral judgment.