Expectations for agents with goal-driven autonomy

References

• Ayan, N., Kuter, U., Yaman, F., & Goldman, R. (2007). HOTRiDE: Hierarchical ordered task replanning in dynamic environments. In Planning and Plan Execution for Real-World Systems - Principles and Practices for Planning in Execution: Papers from the ICAPS Workshop.
   Google Scholar
• Benson, S., & Nilsson, N. (1993). Reacting, planning, and learning in an autonomous agent. Machine Intelligence, 14,29-62. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/242040.242045
   Google Scholar
• Bonet, B., & Geffner, H. (2014). Belief tracking for planning with sensing: Width, complexity and approximations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 50, 923–970. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.4475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouguerra, A., Karlsson, L., & Saffiotti, A. (2007). Active execution monitoring using planning and semantic knowledge. ICAPS Workshop on Planning and Plan Execution for Real-World Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Brenner, M., & Nebel, B. (2006). Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments. In Proceedings of the 2006 international symposium on practical cognitive agents and robots (pp. 15–26).
   Google Scholar
• Bylander, T. (1994). The computational complexity of propositional strips planning. Artificial Intelligence, 69(1–2), 165–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)90081-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashmore, M., Coles, A., Cserna, B., Karpas, E., Magazzeni, D., & Ruml, W. (2019). Replanning for situated robots. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (Vol. 29, pp. 665–673). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, D. (2011). Reactive goal management in a cognitive architecture. Cognitive Systems Research, 12(3–4), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2010.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, D., & Langley, P. (2018). Evolution of the icarus cognitive architecture. Cognitive Systems Research, 48, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choudhury, S., Gruver, N., & Kochenderfer, M. J. (2020). Adaptive informative path planning with multimodal sensing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.09746.
   Google Scholar
• Coddington, A., Fox, M., Gough, J., Long, D., & Serina, I. (2005). Madbot: A motivated and goal directed robot. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 20).
   Google Scholar
• Cox, M. T. (2007). Perpetual self-aware cognitive agents. AI Magazine, 28(1), 32. https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2027/1920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, M. T. (2013). Question-based problem recognition and goal-driven autonomy. In Goal Reasoning: Papers from the ACS workshop (pp. 10–25). University of Maryland, Department of Computer Science.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, M. T., Alavi, Z., Dannenhauer, D., Eyorokon, V., Munoz-Avila, H., & Perlis, D. (2016). MIDCA: A metacognitive, integrated dual-cycle architecture for self-regulated autonomy. In Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 3712–3718). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, M. T., & Dannenhauer, D. (2016). Goal transformation and goal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on goal reasoning.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, M. T., Dannenhauer, D., & Kondrakunta, S. (2017). Goal operations for cognitive systems. In Proceedings of the Thirty-first AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 4385–4391). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, M. T., Oates, T., Paisner, M., & Perlis, D. (2012). Noting anomalies in streams of symbolic predicates using A-distance. Advances in Cognitive Systems, 2, 167–184. http://www.cogsys.org/pdf/paper-3-2-8.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cox, M. T., & Veloso, M. M. (1998). Goal transformations in continuous planning. In Proceedings of the 1998 AAAI fall symposium on distributed continual planning (pp. 23–30).
   Google Scholar
• Dannenhauer, D., & Muñoz-Avila, H. (2013). LUIGi: A goal-driven autonomy agent reasoning with ontologies. In Advances in Cognitive Systems (ACS-13).
   Google Scholar
• Dannenhauer, D., & Muñoz-Avila, H. (2015). Raising expectations in GDA agents acting in dynamic environments. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-15).
   Google Scholar
• Dannenhauer, D., Munoz-Avila, H., & Cox, M. T. (2016). Informed expectations to guide GDA agents in partially observable environments. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-16).
   Google Scholar
• Dearden, R., Meuleau, N., Ramakrishnan, S., Smith, D. E., & Washington, R. (2003). Incremental contingency planning. In ICAPS-03 Workshop on Planning under Uncertainty.
   Google Scholar
• Fikes, R. E., & Nilsson, N. J. (1971). Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(71)90010-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, M., Gerevini, A., Long, D., & Serina, I. (2006a). Plan stability: Replanning versus plan repair. ICAPS.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, M., Gerevini, A., Long, D., & Serina, I. (2006b). Plan stability: Replanning versus plan repair. In ICAPS (Vol. 6, pp. 212–221).
   Google Scholar
• Fox, S., & Leake, D. B. (1995). Learning to refine indexing by introspective reasoning. In International Conference on Case-based Reasoning (pp. 431–440).
   Google Scholar
• Fritz, C., & McIlraith, S. A. (2007). Monitoring plan optimality during execution. In ICAPS (pp. 144–151).
   Google Scholar
• Ghallab, M., Nau, D., & Traverso, P. (2004). Automated planning: Theory & practice. Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Ghallab, M., Nau, D., & Traverso, P. (2014). The actor’s view of automated planning and acting: A position paper. Artificial Intelligence, 208(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2013.11.002
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, R., Boddy, M., & Pryor, L. (1996). Planning with observations and knowledge. In AAAI-97 woRkshop on Theories of Action, Planning and Control.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, R., & Boddy, M. S. (1996). Expressive planning and explicit knowledge. In AIPS (Vol. 96, pp. 110–117).
   Google Scholar
• Grastien, A., & Scala, E. (2020). CPCES: A planning framework to solve conformant planning problems through a counterexample guided refinement. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 284, 103271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawes, N., Hanheide, M., Hargreaves, J., Page, B., Zender, H., & Jensfelt, P. (2011). Home alone: Autonomous extension and correction of spatial representations. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 3907–3914).
   Google Scholar
• Howard, R. A. (1960). Dynamic programming and Markov processes. Technology Press Research Monographs.
   Google Scholar
• Jaidee, U., Muñoz-Avila, H., & Aha, D. W. (2011). Integrated learning for goal-driven autonomy. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 3, pp. 2450–2455).
   Google Scholar
• Jaidee, U., Muñoz-Avila, H., & Aha, D. W. (2012). Learning and reusing goal-specific policies for goal-driven autonomy. In Belén Díaz Agudo, Ian Watson (Eds.), Case-based reasoning research and development (pp. 182–195). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., Floyd, M. W., Coman, A., Wilson, M. A., & Aha, D. W. (2018). Goal reasoning and trusted autonomy. In Foundations of trusted autonomy (pp. 47–66). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L., & Cassandra, A. R. (1998). Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 101(1–2), 99–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00023-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klenk, M., Molineaux, M., & Aha, D. W. (2013). Goal-driven autonomy for responding to unexpected events in strategy simulations. Computational Intelligence, 29(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.2012.00445.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoblock, C. A. (1995). Planning, executing, sensing, and replanning for information gathering. In In Proceedings of The Fourteenth International Joint Conference On Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• Kondrakunta, S. (2017). Implementation and evaluation of goal selection in a cognitive architecture [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Wright State University, Computer Science.
   Google Scholar
• Kondrakunta, S., & Cox, M. T. (2017). Autonomous goal selection operations for agent-based architectures. In Working Notes of the 2017 IJCAI Goal Reasoning Workshop”.
   Google Scholar
• Kurup, U., Lebiere, C., Stentz, A., & Hebert, M. (2012). Using expectations to drive cognitive behavior. Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• Mei, Y., Lu, Y.-H., Hu, Y. C., & Lee, C. G. (2005). A case study of mobile robot’s energy consumption and conservation techniques. In Advanced Robotics, 2005. ICAR’05. Proceedings., 12th International Conference on (pp. 492–497).
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, T. M., Keller, R. M., & Kedar-Cabelli, S. T. (1986). Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view. Machine Learning, 1(1), 47–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116250
   Google Scholar
• Molineaux, M., & Aha, D. W. (2014). Learning unknown event models. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• Molineaux, M., Klenk, M., & Aha, D. W. (2010). Goal-driven autonomy in a navy strategy simulation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1548–1554).
   Google Scholar
• Molineaux, M., Kuter, U., & Klenk, M. (2012). Discoverhistory: Understanding the past in planning and execution. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (Vol. 2, pp. 989–996).
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz-Avila, H., Aha, D. W., Jaidee, U., Klenk, M., & Molineaux, M. (2010). Applying goal-driven autonomy to a team shooter game. In FLAIRS Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz-Avila, H., Jaidee, U., Aha, D. W., & Carter, E. (2010). Goal-driven autonomy with case-based reasoning. In Isabelle Bichindaritz, Stefania Montani (Eds.), Case-based reasoning. research and development (pp. 228–241). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Murdock, J. W., & Goel, A. K. (2008). Meta-case-based reasoning: Self-improvement through self-understanding. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 20(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09528130701472416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryor, L., & Collins, G. (1996). Planning for contingencies: A decision-based approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4, 287–339. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1995). BDI agents: From theory to practice. AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, M., Vattam, S., Alford, R., Auslander, B., Karneeb, J., Molineaux, M., … Aha, D. W. (2014). Iterative goal refinement for robotics. In ICAPS Workshop on Planning and Robotics.
   Google Scholar
• Shani, G., & Brafman, R. I. (2011). Replanning in domains with partial information and sensing actions. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2011, pp. 2021–2026).
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. (2004). Choosing objectives in over-subscription planning. In ICAPS (Vol. 4, p. 393). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sugandh, N., Ontañón, S., & Ram, A. (2008). On-line case-based plan adaptation for real-time strategy games. AAAI.
   Google Scholar
• Talamadupula, K., Benton, J., Kambhampati, S., Schermerhorn, P., & Scheutz, M. (2010). Planning for human-robot teaming in open worlds. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 1(2), 14. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1869397.1869403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talamadupula, K., Briggs, G., Scheutz, M., & Kambhampati, S. (2017). Architectural mechanisms for handling human instructions for open-world mixed-initiative team tasks and goals. Advances in Cognitive Systems, 5, 37–56. http://www.cogsys.org/papers/ACSvol5/paper-5-6.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vattam, S., Klenk, M., Molineaux, M., & Aha, D. W. (2013). Breadth of approaches to goal reasoning: A research survey (Tech. Rep.). Naval Research Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Veloso, M., Pollack, M., & Cox, M. (1998). Rationale-based monitoring for planning in dynamic environments. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, 171–179.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, B. (2012). Integrating learning in a multi-scale agent [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, B. G., Mateas, M., & Jhala, A. (2010). Applying goal-driven autonomy to StarCraft. In AIIDE.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, B. G., Mateas, M., & Jhala, A. (2012). Learning from demonstration for goal-driven autonomy. In AAAI.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, M. A., McMahon, J., & Aha, D. W. (2014). Bounded expectations for discrepancy detection in goal-driven autonomy. In AI and Robotics: Papers from the AAAI Workshop.
   Google Scholar