The recent breakthroughs in the research on Large Language Models (LLMs) have triggered a transformation across several research domains. Notably, the integration of LLMs has greatly enhanced performance in robot Task And Motion Planning (TAMP). However, previous approaches often neglect the consideration of dynamic environments, i.e., the presence of dynamic objects such as humans. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to address this gap by incorporating human awareness into LLM-based robot task planning. To obtain an effective representation of the dynamic environment, our approach integrates humans' information into a hierarchical scene graph. To ensure the plan's executability, we leverage LLMs to ground the environmental topology and actionable knowledge into formal planning language. Most importantly, we use LLMs to predict future human activities and plan tasks for the robot considering the predictions. Our contribution facilitates the development of integrating human awareness into LLM-driven robot task planning, and paves the way for proactive robot decision-making in dynamic environments.

This is my 2nd publication in field of Artificial Intelligence, prepared as a part of my project in AI Nanodegree classes. This time the goal was to write research paper about important historical developments in the field of AI planning and search. I hope you will like it . Planning or more precisely: automated planning and scheduling is one of the major fields of AI (among the others like: Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing, Computer Vision and more). To accomplish given tasks, these systems need to have input data containing descriptions of initial states of the world, desired goals and actions.

Journal of Arti ial In telligen e Resear h 20 (2003) 139-144 Submitted 09/03; published 12/03 Commentary PDDL 2.1: Represen tation vs. Computation H e tor Gener he tor.geffner ICREA { Universitat Pomp eu F abr a Pase o de Cir unvala ion 8 08003 Bar elona, Sp ain Abstra t I ommen t on the PDDL 2.1 language and its use in the planning omp etition, fo using on the hoi es made for a ommo dating time and on urren y . I also dis uss some metho d-ologi al issues that ha v e to do with the mo v e to w ard more expressiv e planning languages and the balan e needed in planning resear h b et w een seman ti s and omputation. In tro du tion F o x and Long should b e thank ed and ongratulated for their eort in organizing and running the 3rd In ternational Planning Comp etition. They ame up with an extended planning language along with a n um b er of new problems and domains that hallenged existing planners and will ertainly hallenge future planners as w ell.

Complexity analysis of planning is problematic. Even very simple planning languages are PSPACE-complete, yet cannot model many simple problems naturally. Many languages with much more powerful features are also PSPACE-complete. It is thus difficult to separate planning languages in a useful way and to get complexity figures that better reflect reality. This paper introduces new methods for complexity analysis of planning and similar combinatorial search problems, in order to achieve more precision and complexity separations than standard methods allow. Padding instances with the solution size yields a complexity measure that is immune to this factor and reveals other causes of hardness, that are otherwise hidden. Further combining this method with limited non-determinism improves the precision, making even finer separations possible. We demonstrate with examples how these methods can narrow the gap between theory and practice.