"Planning is the process of generating (possibly partial) representations of future behavior prior to the use of such plans to constrain or control that behavior. The outcome is usually a set of actions, with temporal and other constraints on them, for execution by some agent or agents. As a core aspect of human intelligence, planning has been studied since the earliest days of AI and cognitive science. Planning research has led to many useful tools for real-world applications, and has yielded significant insights into the organization of behavior and the nature of reasoning about actions."
– Planning entry by Austin Tate in the MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.
Answer Set Planning refers to the use of Answer Set Programming (ASP) to compute plans, i.e., solutions to planning problems, that transform a given state of the world to another state. The development of efficient and scalable answer set solvers has provided a significant boost to the development of ASP-based planning systems. This paper surveys the progress made during the last two and a half decades in the area of answer set planning, from its foundations to its use in challenging planning domains. The survey explores the advantages and disadvantages of answer set planning. It also discusses typical applications of answer set planning and presents a set of challenges for future research.
Dumas, Marlon, Fournier, Fabiana, Limonad, Lior, Marrella, Andrea, Montali, Marco, Rehse, Jana-Rebecca, Accorsi, Rafael, Calvanese, Diego, De Giacomo, Giuseppe, Fahland, Dirk, Gal, Avigdor, La Rosa, Marcello, Völzer, Hagen, Weber, Ingo
These opportunities require a significant shift in the way the BPMS operates and interacts with its operators(both human and digital agents). While traditional BPMSs encode pre-defined flows and rules, an ABPMS is able to reason about the current state of the process(or across several processes) to determine a course of action that improves the performance of the process. To fully exploit this capability, the ABPMS needs a degree of autonomy. Naturally, this autonomy needs to be framed by operational assumptions, goals, and environmental constraints. Also, ABPMSs need to engage conversationally with human agents, they need to explain their actions, and they need to recommend adaptations or improvements in the way the process is performed. This manifesto outlined a number of research challenges that need to be overcome to realize systems that exhibit these characteristics.
Opponent modeling is the ability to use prior knowledge and observations in order to predict the behavior of an opponent. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of existing opponent modeling techniques for adversarial domains, many of which must address stochastic, continuous, or concurrent actions, and sparse, partially observable payoff structures. We discuss all the components of opponent modeling systems, including feature extraction, learning algorithms, and strategy abstractions. These discussions lead us to propose a new form of analysis for describing and predicting the evolution of game states over time. We then introduce a new framework that facilitates method comparison, analyze a representative selection of techniques using the proposed framework, and highlight common trends among recently proposed methods. Finally, we list several open problems and discuss future research directions inspired by AI research on opponent modeling and related research in other disciplines.
Petropoulos, Fotios, Apiletti, Daniele, Assimakopoulos, Vassilios, Babai, Mohamed Zied, Barrow, Devon K., Taieb, Souhaib Ben, Bergmeir, Christoph, Bessa, Ricardo J., Bijak, Jakub, Boylan, John E., Browell, Jethro, Carnevale, Claudio, Castle, Jennifer L., Cirillo, Pasquale, Clements, Michael P., Cordeiro, Clara, Oliveira, Fernando Luiz Cyrino, De Baets, Shari, Dokumentov, Alexander, Ellison, Joanne, Fiszeder, Piotr, Franses, Philip Hans, Frazier, David T., Gilliland, Michael, Gönül, M. Sinan, Goodwin, Paul, Grossi, Luigi, Grushka-Cockayne, Yael, Guidolin, Mariangela, Guidolin, Massimo, Gunter, Ulrich, Guo, Xiaojia, Guseo, Renato, Harvey, Nigel, Hendry, David F., Hollyman, Ross, Januschowski, Tim, Jeon, Jooyoung, Jose, Victor Richmond R., Kang, Yanfei, Koehler, Anne B., Kolassa, Stephan, Kourentzes, Nikolaos, Leva, Sonia, Li, Feng, Litsiou, Konstantia, Makridakis, Spyros, Martin, Gael M., Martinez, Andrew B., Meeran, Sheik, Modis, Theodore, Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, Önkal, Dilek, Paccagnini, Alessia, Panagiotelis, Anastasios, Panapakidis, Ioannis, Pavía, Jose M., Pedio, Manuela, Pedregal, Diego J., Pinson, Pierre, Ramos, Patrícia, Rapach, David E., Reade, J. James, Rostami-Tabar, Bahman, Rubaszek, Michał, Sermpinis, Georgios, Shang, Han Lin, Spiliotis, Evangelos, Syntetos, Aris A., Talagala, Priyanga Dilini, Talagala, Thiyanga S., Tashman, Len, Thomakos, Dimitrios, Thorarinsdottir, Thordis, Todini, Ezio, Arenas, Juan Ramón Trapero, Wang, Xiaoqian, Winkler, Robert L., Yusupova, Alisa, Ziel, Florian
Forecasting has always been at the forefront of decision making and planning. The uncertainty that surrounds the future is both exciting and challenging, with individuals and organisations seeking to minimise risks and maximise utilities. The large number of forecasting applications calls for a diverse set of forecasting methods to tackle real-life challenges. This article provides a non-systematic review of the theory and the practice of forecasting. We provide an overview of a wide range of theoretical, state-of-the-art models, methods, principles, and approaches to prepare, produce, organise, and evaluate forecasts. We then demonstrate how such theoretical concepts are applied in a variety of real-life contexts. We do not claim that this review is an exhaustive list of methods and applications. However, we wish that our encyclopedic presentation will offer a point of reference for the rich work that has been undertaken over the last decades, with some key insights for the future of forecasting theory and practice. Given its encyclopedic nature, the intended mode of reading is non-linear. We offer cross-references to allow the readers to navigate through the various topics. We complement the theoretical concepts and applications covered by large lists of free or open-source software implementations and publicly-available databases.
Ultimate Goal Setting and Achieving is the course for you if you have ever looked at someone else and thought "I want to be like them!" Sometimes when you try to be like that person, you might feel upset or even angry because despite all of your hard work it seems like you are getting nowhere, and everyone else is doing better than you. That's because hard work alone is useless. You need direction and purpose. Think of a car race. It doesn't matter how fast the car is.
To effectively use an abstract (PDDL) planning domain to achieve goals in an unknown environment, an agent must instantiate such a domain with the objects of the environment and their properties. If the agent has an egocentric and partial view of the environment, it needs to act, sense, and abstract the perceived data in the planning domain. Furthermore, the agent needs to compile the plans computed by a symbolic planner into low level actions executable by its actuators. This paper proposes a framework that aims to accomplish the aforementioned perspective and allows an agent to perform different tasks. For this purpose, we integrate machine learning models to abstract the sensory data, symbolic planning for goal achievement and path planning for navigation. We evaluate the proposed method in accurate simulated environments, where the sensors are RGB-D on-board camera, GPS and compass.
The planning domain has experienced increased interest in the formal synthesis of decision-making policies. This formal synthesis typically entails finding a policy which satisfies formal specifications in the form of some well-defined logic. While many such logics have been proposed with varying degrees of expressiveness and complexity in their capacity to capture desirable agent behavior, their value is limited when deriving decision-making policies which satisfy certain types of asymptotic behavior in general system models. In particular, we are interested in specifying constraints on the steady-state behavior of an agent, which captures the proportion of time an agent spends in each state as it interacts for an indefinite period of time with its environment. This is sometimes called the average or expected behavior of the agent and the associated planning problem is faced with significant challenges unless strong restrictions are imposed on the underlying model in terms of the connectivity of its graph structure. In this paper, we explore this steady-state planning problem that consists of deriving a decision-making policy for an agent such that constraints on its steady-state behavior are satisfied. A linear programming solution for the general case of multichain Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) is proposed and we prove that optimal solutions to the proposed programs yield stationary policies with rigorous guarantees of behavior.
Castano, Rebecca, Vaquero, Tiago, Rossi, Federico, Verma, Vandi, Van Wyk, Ellen, Allard, Dan, Huffmann, Bennett, Murphy, Erin M., Dhamani, Nihal, Hewitt, Robert A., Davidoff, Scott, Amini, Rashied, Barrett, Anthony, Castillo-Rogez, Julie, Chien, Steve A., Choukroun, Mathieu, Dadaian, Alain, Francis, Raymond, Gorr, Benjamin, Hofstadter, Mark, Ingham, Mitch, Sorice, Cristina, Tierney, Iain
Onboard autonomy technologies such as planning and scheduling, identification of scientific targets, and content-based data summarization, will lead to exciting new space science missions. However, the challenge of operating missions with such onboard autonomous capabilities has not been studied to a level of detail sufficient for consideration in mission concepts. These autonomy capabilities will require changes to current operations processes, practices, and tools. We have developed a case study to assess the changes needed to enable operators and scientists to operate an autonomous spacecraft by facilitating a common model between the ground personnel and the onboard algorithms. We assess the new operations tools and workflows necessary to enable operators and scientists to convey their desired intent to the spacecraft, and to be able to reconstruct and explain the decisions made onboard and the state of the spacecraft. Mock-ups of these tools were used in a user study to understand the effectiveness of the processes and tools in enabling a shared framework of understanding, and in the ability of the operators and scientists to effectively achieve mission science objectives.
Goal setting seems like a no brainer to achieve any Great Goal! Yet it is seldom effectively practiced. The Key is not about learning complex concepts but rather developing DEEP understanding about simple yet effective methods. What better way to learn this other than through a story? In this 6 Episode series, let us learn various aspects of Goal setting in an extremely effective manner by walking along with Billy as he learns powerful techniques that truly revolutionize his life.
The interdependence between nodes in graphs is key to improve class predictions on nodes and utilized in approaches like Label Propagation (LP) or in Graph Neural Networks (GNN). Nonetheless, uncertainty estimation for non-independent node-level predictions is under-explored. In this work, we explore uncertainty quantification for node classification in three ways: (1) We derive three axioms explicitly characterizing the expected predictive uncertainty behavior in homophilic attributed graphs. (2) We propose a new model Graph Posterior Network (GPN) which explicitly performs Bayesian posterior updates for predictions on interdependent nodes. GPN provably obeys the proposed axioms. (3) We extensively evaluate GPN and a strong set of baselines on semi-supervised node classification including detection of anomalous features, and detection of left-out classes. GPN outperforms existing approaches for uncertainty estimation in the experiments.