This paper presents a new combinatorial optimisation task, the Subset Sum Matching Problem (SSMP), which is an abstraction of common financial applications such as trades reconciliation. We present three algorithms, two suboptimal and one optimal, to solve this problem. We also generate a benchmark to cover different instances of SSMP varying in complexity, and carry out an experimental evaluation to assess the performance of the approaches.

The use of Potential-Based Reward Shaping (PBRS) has shown great promise in the ongoing research effort to tackle sample inefficiency in Reinforcement Learning (RL). However, choosing the right potential function remains an open challenge. Additionally, RL techniques are usually constrained to use a finite horizon for computational limitations, which introduces a bias when using PBRS. In this paper, we first build some theoretically-grounded intuition on why selecting the potential function as the optimal value function of the task at hand produces performance advantages. We then analyse the bias induced by finite horizons in the context of PBRS producing novel insights. Finally, leveraging abstractions as a way to approximate the optimal value function of the given task, we assess the sample efficiency and performance impact of PBRS on four environments including a goal-oriented navigation task and three Arcade Learning Environments (ALE) games. Remarkably, experimental results show that we can reach the same level of performance as CNN-based solutions with a simple fully-connected network.

Most of the work on learning action models focus on learning the actions’ dynamics from input plans. This allows us to specify the valid plans of a planning task. However, very little work focuses on learning action costs, which in turn allows us to rank the different plans. In this paper we introduce a new problem: that of learning the costs of a set of actions such that a set of input plans are optimal under the resulting planning model. To solve this problem we present LACFIPk, an algorithm to learn action’s costs from unlabeled input plans. We provide theoretical and empirical results showing how LACFIPk can successfully solve this task.

Identifying the specific actions that achieve goals when solving a planning task might be beneficial for various planning applications. Traditionally, this identification occurs post-search, as some actions may temporarily achieve goals that are later undone and re-achieved by other actions. In this paper, we propose a compilation that extends the original planning task with commit actions that enforce the persistence of specific goals once achieved, allowing planners to identify permanent goal achievement during planning. Experimental results indicate that solving the reformulated tasks does not incur on any additional overhead both when performing optimal and suboptimal planning, while providing useful information for some downstream tasks.

In Environment Design, one interested party seeks to affect another agent's decisions by applying changes to the environment. Most research on planning environment (re)design assumes the interested party's objective is to facilitate the recognition of goals and plans, and search over the space of environment modifications to find the minimal set of changes that simplify those tasks and optimise a particular metric. This search space is usually intractable, so existing approaches devise metric-dependent pruning techniques for performing search more efficiently. This results in approaches that are not able to generalise across different objectives and/or metrics. In this paper, we argue that the interested party could have objectives and metrics that are not necessarily related to recognising agents' goals or plans. Thus, to generalise the task of Planning Environment Redesign, we develop a general environment redesign approach that is metric-agnostic and leverages recent research on top-quality planning to efficiently redesign planning environments according to any interested party's objective and metric. Experiments over a set of environment redesign benchmarks show that our general approach outperforms existing approaches when using well-known metrics, such as facilitating the recognition of goals, as well as its effectiveness when solving environment redesign tasks that optimise a novel set of different metrics.

In some scenarios, planning agents might be interested in reaching states that keep certain relationships with respect to a set of goals. Recently, two of these types of states were proposed: centroids, which minimize the average distance to the goals; and minimum covering states, which minimize the maximum distance to the goals. Previous approaches compute these states by searching forward either in the original or a reformulated task. In this paper, we propose several algorithms that use symbolic bidirectional search to efficiently compute centroids and minimum covering states. Experimental results in existing and novel benchmarks show that our algorithms scale much better than previous approaches, establishing a new state-of-the-art technique for this problem.

In many real-world scenarios, agents are involved in optimization problems. Since most of these scenarios are over-constrained, optimal solutions do not always satisfy all agents. Some agents might be unhappy and ask questions of the form “Why does solution S not satisfy property P ?”. We propose CMAOE, a domain-independent approach to obtain contrastive explanations by: (i) generating a new solution S′ where property P is enforced, while also minimizing the differences between S and S′; and (ii) highlighting the differences between the two solutions, with respect to the features of the objective function of the multi-agent system. Such explanations aim to help agents understanding why the initial solution is better in the context of the multi-agent system than what they expected. We have carried out a computational evaluation that shows that CMAOE can generate contrastive explanations for large multi-agent optimization problems. We have also performed an extensive user study in four different domains that shows that: (i) after being presented with these explanations, humans’ satisfaction with the original solution increases; and (ii) the constrastive explanations generated by CMAOE are preferred or equally preferred by humans over the ones generated by state of the art approaches.

In some applications, planning-monitoring systems generate plans and monitor their execution by other agents. During execution, agents might deviate from these plans for various reasons. The deviation from the expected behavior will be observed by the planning-monitoring system, which will replan in order to provide the agent a new suggested plan. Most existing replanning approaches maintain the goals and compute a plan that achieves them under the new circumstances. This is often not realistic, as achieving the original goal might be very costly or impossible under the current conditions. Furthermore, replanning approaches usually overlook agent’s behavior up to the observed deviation from the original plan. In this paper we introduce GREPLAN, a novel approach that proposes new replanning goals (and plans) by solving a multi-objective optimization problem that considers all goals within a perimeter of the original goal. Empirical results in several planning benchmarks show that GREPLAN successfully reacts to deviations from the original plan by generating new appropriate replanning goals.

Abstract Urban Traffic Control is a key problem for most big cities. Current approaches to handle the city traffic rely on controlling traffic lights. The systems in operation range from static control of traffic light phases to adaptive systems based on numeric models and traffic sensors. Recently, some planning‐based approaches have also been proposed. These approaches work at a higher level of abstraction, but have been found to work well if complemented by low‐level systems. We have identified two main difficulties for the wide use of planning techniques in this domain: generating the control models is a difficult task; and some algorithms scale poorly. In this paper we present Automated Planning for Traffic Control (APTC), a control system based on Automated Planning, that successfully overcomes these two problems. It combines techniques that continuously: learn an accurate planning model; and also divide the city for distributed reasoning in order to scale to large city networks. Experimental results show that APTC outperforms static approaches as well as other planning‐based systems. We also show that the combination of both approaches improves compared with using only one of them.

Weighted A* (wA*) is a widely used algorithm for rapidly, but suboptimally, solving planning and search problems. The cost of the solution it produces is guaranteed to be at most W times the optimal solution cost, where W is the weight wA* uses in prioritizing open nodes. W is therefore a suboptimality bound for the solution produced by wA*. There is broad consensus that this bound is not very accurate, that the actual suboptimality of wA*'s solution is often much less than W times optimal. However, there is very little published evidence supporting that view, and no existing explanation of why W is a poor bound. This paper fills in these gaps in the literature. We begin with a large-scale experiment demonstrating that, across a wide variety of domains and heuristics for those domains, W is indeed very often far from the true suboptimality of wA*'s solution. We then analytically identify the potential sources of error. Finally, we present a practical method for correcting for two of these sources of error and experimentally show that the corrections frequently eliminate much of the error.

In non-cooperative multi-agent systems, agents might want to prevent the opponents from achieving their goals. One alternative to solve this task would be using counterplanning to generate a plan that allows an agent to block other's to reach their goals. In this paper, we introduce a fully automated domain-independent approach for counterplanning. It combines; goal recognition to infer an opponent's goal; landmarks' computation to identify subgoals that can be used to block opponents' goals achievement; and classical automated planning to generate plans that prevent the opponent's goals achievement. Experimental results in several domains show the benefits of our novel approach.