David W. Aha

dblp:25/557 · also David William Aha · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
83ranked-venue papers
17as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0007-5406-2062ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 74 · 14 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 23 · 3 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 5 · 2 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
25 papers
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 54% Reinforcement learning · 12% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 10%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
3 papers
Human-AI interaction · 85% Usability and user experience research · 15%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Computational complexity · 100%

Topics — the 30 heaviest of 47, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
hierarchical planning
1.172017
Incorporating Domain-Independent Planning Heuristics in Hierarchical Planning · AAAI 2017
Hierarchical Planning: Relating Task and Goal Decomposition with Task Sharing · IJCAI 2016
Tight Bounds for HTN Planning with Task Insertion · IJCAI 2015
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
goal reasoning
0.842017
A Goal Reasoning Agent for Controlling UAVs in Beyond-Visual-Range Air Combat · IJCAI 2017
Trust-Guided Behavior Adaptation Using Case-Based Reasoning · IJCAI 2015
Learning Unknown Event Models · AAAI 2014
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
case-based reasoning
0.352015
Trust-Guided Behavior Adaptation Using Case-Based Reasoning · IJCAI 2015
The Ins and Outs of Critiquing · IJCAI 2007
SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
curriculum learning
0.312018
Comparing Reward Shaping, Visual Hints, and Curriculum Learning · AAAI 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
deep reinforcement learning
0.312018
Comparing Reward Shaping, Visual Hints, and Curriculum Learning · AAAI 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reward design
reward shaping
0.312018
Comparing Reward Shaping, Visual Hints, and Curriculum Learning · AAAI 2018
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning
domain-independent planning
0.312017
Incorporating Domain-Independent Planning Heuristics in Hierarchical Planning · AAAI 2017
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › heuristic search
planning heuristics
0.312017
Incorporating Domain-Independent Planning Heuristics in Hierarchical Planning · AAAI 2017
Human-AI interaction › responsible AI
AI ethics
0.312017
The AI Rebellion: Changing the Narrative · AAAI 2017
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › hierarchical problem solving
task decomposition
0.322016
Hierarchical Planning: Relating Task and Goal Decomposition with Task Sharing · IJCAI 2016
SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › goal reasoning
goal decomposition
0.212016
Hierarchical Planning: Relating Task and Goal Decomposition with Task Sharing · IJCAI 2016
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › goal reasoning
goal-driven autonomy
0.222011
Integrated Learning for Goal-Driven Autonomy · IJCAI 2011
Goal-Driven Autonomy in a Navy Strategy Simulation · AAAI 2010
Computational complexity › complexity of reasoning
planning complexity
0.212015
Tight Bounds for HTN Planning with Task Insertion · IJCAI 2015
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph neural network › node classification
collective classification
0.222012
Semi-Supervised Collective Classification via Hybrid Label Regularization · ICML 2012
Cautious Inference in Collective Classification · AAAI 2007
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
semi-supervised learning
0.112012
Semi-Supervised Collective Classification via Hybrid Label Regularization · ICML 2012
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
autonomous agents
0.112017
The AI Rebellion: Changing the Narrative · AAAI 2017
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
state prediction
0.112017
A Goal Reasoning Agent for Controlling UAVs in Beyond-Visual-Range Air Combat · IJCAI 2017
Data integration and cleaning
data mapping
0.112008
IMT: A Mixed-Initiative Data Mapping and Search Toolkit · AAAI 2008
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › agent architecture
situated agents
0.112014
Learning Unknown Event Models · AAAI 2014
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › knowledge acquisition
domain knowledge acquisition
0.112005
Automatically Acquiring Domain Knowledge For Adaptive Game AI Using Evolutionary Learning · AAAI 2005
Usability and user experience research
testbed
0.112005
TIELT: A Testbed for Gaming Environments · AAAI 2005
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › dialogue analysis
conversational text analysis
0.012013
Multiparticipant chat analysis: A survey · Artif. Intell. 2013
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
agent architecture
0.012010
Goal-Driven Autonomy in a Navy Strategy Simulation · AAAI 2010
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
dynamic environments
0.012010
Planning in Dynamic Environments: Extending HTNs with Nonlinear Continuous Effects · AAAI 2010
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › case-based reasoning
memory-based reasoning
0.021998
A Probabilistic Framework for Memory-Based Reasoning · Artif. Intell. 1998
Towards a Better Understanding of Memory-based Reasoning Systems · ICML 1994
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning › knowledge-based planning
case-based planning
0.012001
SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001
Human-AI interaction
mixed-initiative interaction
0.012008
IMT: A Mixed-Initiative Data Mapping and Search Toolkit · AAAI 2008
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › population-based learning
evolutionary learning
0.012005
Automatically Acquiring Domain Knowledge For Adaptive Game AI Using Evolutionary Learning · AAAI 2005
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
incremental learning
0.021991
Incremental Constructive Induction: An Instance-Based Approach · ML 1991
Incremental, Instance-Based Learning of Independent and Graded Concept Descriptions · ML 1989
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
hierarchical problem solving
0.011995
Stratified Case-Based Reasoning: Reusing Hierarchical Problem Solving Episodes · IJCAI 1995

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

conceptual framework · 0.6goal reasoning · 0.5deep reinforcement learning · 0.3opponent behavior recognition · 0.3hierarchy relaxation · 0.3discrepancy detection · 0.3delete-relaxation heuristics · 0.3automated planning · 0.3LMCut heuristic · 0.3case-based reasoning · 0.3mixed-initiative interaction · 0.2testbed · 0.1plan trace learning · 0.1case study · 0.0instance-based learning · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Understanding imbalanced data: XAI & interpretable ML framework
abstract
Abstract There is a gap between current methods that explain deep learning models that work on imbalanced image data and the needs of the imbalanced learning community. Existing methods that explain imbalanced data are geared toward binary classification, single layer machine learning models and low dimensional data. Current eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques for vision data mainly focus on mapping predictions of specific instances to inputs, instead of examining global data properties and complexities of entire classes. Therefore, there is a need for a framework that is tailored to modern deep networks, that incorporates large, high dimensional, multi-class datasets, and uncovers data complexities commonly found in imbalanced data. We propose a set of techniques that can be used by both deep learning model users to identify, visualize and understand class prototypes, sub-concepts and outlier instances; and by imbalanced learning algorithm developers to detect features and class exemplars that are key to model performance. The components of our framework can be applied sequentially in their entirety or individually, making it fully flexible to the user’s specific needs ( https://github.com/dd1github/XAI_for_Imbalanced_Learning ).
Damien Dablain, Colin Bellinger, Bartosz Krawczyk, David W. Aha, Nitesh V. Chawla
Mach. Learn.4
2020 Case-Based Gesture Interface for Multiagent Formation Control
Divya K. Srivastava, Daniel M. Lofaro, Tristan Schuler, Donald A. Sofge, David W. Aha
ICCBR5
2018 Comparing Reward Shaping, Visual Hints, and Curriculum Learning
abstract
Common approaches to learn complex tasks in reinforcement learning include reward shaping, environmental hints, or a curriculum. Yet few studies examine how they compare to each other, when one might prefer one approach, or how they may complement each other. As a first step in this direction, we compare reward shaping, hints, and curricula for a Deep RL agent in the game of Minecraft. We seek to answer whether reward shaping, visual hints, or the curricula have the most impact on performance, which we measure as the time to reach the target, the distance from the target, the cumulative reward, or the number of actions taken. Our analyses show that performance is most impacted by the curriculum used and visual hints; shaping had less impact. For similar navigation tasks, the results suggest that designing an effective curriculum and providing appropriate hints most improve the performance. Common approaches to learn complex tasks in reinforcement learning include reward shaping, environmental hints, or a curriculum, yet few studies examine how they compare to each other. We compare these approaches for a Deep RL agent in the game of Minecraft and show performance is most impacted by the curriculum used and visual hints; shaping had less impact. For similar navigation tasks, this suggests that designing an effective curriculum with hints most improve the performance.
Rey Pocius, David Isele, Mark Roberts, David W. Aha
AAAI4
2018 Novel Object Discovery Using Case-Based Reasoning and Convolutional Neural Networks
J. T. Turner, Michael W. Floyd, Kalyan Moy Gupta, David W. Aha
ICCBR4
2017 The AI Rebellion: Changing the Narrative
abstract
Sci-fi narratives permeating the collective consciousness endow AI Rebellion with ample negative connotations. However, for AI agents, as for humans, attitudes of protest, objection, and rejection have many potential benefits in support of ethics, safety, self-actualization, solidarity, and social justice, and are necessary in a wide variety of contexts. We launch a conversation on constructive AI rebellion and describe a framework meant to support discussion, implementation, and deployment of AI Rebel Agents as protagonists of positive narratives.
David W. Aha, Alexandra Coman
AAAI1
2017 Incorporating Domain-Independent Planning Heuristics in Hierarchical Planning
abstract
Heuristics serve as a powerful tool in modern domain-independent planning (DIP) systems by providing critical guidance during the search for high-quality solutions. However, they have not been broadly used with hierarchical planning techniques, which are more expressive and tend to scale better in complex domains by exploiting additional domain-specific knowledge. Complicating matters, we show that for Hierarchical Goal Network (HGN) planning, a goal-based hierarchical planning formalism that we focus on in this paper, any poly-time heuristic that is derived from a delete-relaxation DIP heuristic has to make some relaxation of the hierarchical semantics. To address this, we present a principled framework for incorporating DIP heuristics into HGN planning using a simple relaxation of the HGN semantics we call Hierarchy-Relaxation. This framework allows for computing heuristic estimates of HGN problems using any DIP heuristic in an admissibility-preserving manner. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach by using the LMCut heuristic to guide an optimal HGN planner. Our empirical results with three benchmark domains demonstrate that simultaneously leveraging hierarchical knowledge and heuristic guidance substantially improves planning performance.
Vikas Shivashankar, Ron Alford, David W. Aha
AAAI3
2017 Case-Based Team Recognition Using Learned Opponent Models
Michael W. Floyd, Justin Karneeb, David W. Aha
ICCBR3
2017 A Goal Reasoning Agent for Controlling UAVs in Beyond-Visual-Range Air Combat
abstract
We describe the Tactical Battle Manager (TBM), an intelligent agent that uses several integrated artificial intelligence techniques to control an autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle in simulated beyond-visual-range (BVR) air combat scenarios. The TBM incorporates goal reasoning, automated planning, opponent behavior recognition, state prediction, and discrepancy detection to operate in a real-time, dynamic, uncertain, and adversarial environment. We describe evidence from our empirical study that the TBM significantly outperforms an expert-scripted agent in BVR scenarios. We also report the results of an ablation study which indicates that all components of our agent architecture are needed to maximize mission performance.
Michael W. Floyd, Justin Karneeb, Philip Moore 0002, David W. Aha
IJCAI4
2016 Cost-Optimal Algorithms for Planning with Procedural Control Knowledge
abstract
There is an impressive body of work on developing heuristics and other reasoning algorithms to guide search in optimal and anytime planning algorithms for classical planning. However, very little effort has been directed towards developing analogous techniques to guide search towards high-quality solutions in hierarchical planning formalisms like HTN planning, which allows using additional domain-specific procedural control knowledge. In lieu of such techniques, this control knowledge often needs to provide the necessary search guidance to the planning algorithm, which imposes a substantial burden on the domain author and can yield brittle or error-prone domain models. We address this gap by extending recent work on a new hierarchical goal-based planning formalism called Hierarchical Goal Network (HGN) Planning to develop the Hierarchically-Optimal Goal Decomposition Planner (HOpGDP), an HGN planning algorithm that computes hierarchically-optimal plans. HOpGDP is guided by $h_{HL}$, a new HGN planning heuristic that extends existing admissible landmark-based heuristics from classical planning to compute admissible cost estimates for HGN planning problems. Our experimental evaluation across three benchmark planning domains shows that HOpGDP compares favorably to both optimal classical planners due to its ability to use domain-specific procedural knowledge, and a blind-search version of HOpGDP due to the search guidance provided by $h_{HL}$.
Vikas Shivashankar, Ron Alford, Mark Roberts, David W. Aha
ECAI4
2016 Incorporating Transparency During Trust-Guided Behavior Adaptation
Michael W. Floyd, David W. Aha
ICCBR2
2016 Hierarchical Planning: Relating Task and Goal Decomposition with Task Sharing
Ron Alford, Vikas Shivashankar, Mark Roberts, Jeremy Frank, David W. Aha
IJCAI5
2016 Leveraging Neighbor Attributes for Classification in Sparsely Labeled Networks
abstract
Many analysis tasks involve linked nodes, such as people connected by friendship links. Research on link-based classification (LBC) has studied how to leverage these connections to improve classification accuracy. Most such prior research has assumed the provision of a densely labeled training network. Instead, this article studies the common and challenging case when LBC must use a single sparsely labeled network for both learning and inference, a case where existing methods often yield poor accuracy. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel method that enables prediction via “neighbor attributes,” which were briefly considered by early LBC work but then abandoned due to perceived problems. We then explain, using both extensive experiments and loss decomposition analysis, how using neighbor attributes often significantly improves accuracy. We further show that using appropriate semi-supervised learning (SSL) is essential to obtaining the best accuracy in this domain and that the gains of neighbor attributes remain across a range of SSL choices and data conditions. Finally, given the challenges of label sparsity for LBC and the impact of neighbor attributes, we show that multiple previous studies must be re-considered, including studies regarding the best model features, the impact of noisy attributes, and strategies for active learning.
Luke K. McDowell, David W. Aha
ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data2
2015 Learning to Estimate: A Case-Based Approach to Task Execution Prediction
Bryan Auslander, Michael W. Floyd, Thomas Apker, Benjamin Johnson 0003, Mark Roberts, David W. Aha
ICCBR6
2015 Case-Based Policy and Goal Recognition
Hayley Borck, Justin Karneeb, Michael W. Floyd, Ron Alford, David W. Aha
ICCBR5
2015 Improving Trust-Guided Behavior Adaptation Using Operator Feedback
Michael W. Floyd, Michael Drinkwater, David W. Aha
ICCBR3
2015 Case-Based Plan Recognition Under Imperfect Observability
Swaroop Vattam, David W. Aha
ICCBR2
2015 Tight Bounds for HTN Planning with Task Insertion
Ron Alford, Pascal Bercher, David W. Aha
IJCAI3
2015 Trust-Guided Behavior Adaptation Using Case-Based Reasoning
Michael W. Floyd, Michael Drinkwater, David W. Aha
IJCAI3
2015 Tight Bounds for HTN Planning with Task Insertion (Extended Abstract)
abstract
Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) planning with task insertion (TIHTN planning) is a variant of HTN planning. In HTN planning, the only means to alter task networks is to decompose compound tasks. In TIHTN planning, tasks may also be inserted directly. In this paper we provide tight complexity bounds for TIHTN planning along two axis: whether variables are allowed and whether methods must be totally ordered.
Ron Alford, Pascal Bercher, David W. Aha
SOCS3
2015 Building high assurance human-centric decision systems
Constance L. Heitmeyer, Marc Pickett, Elizabeth I. Leonard, Myla Archer, Indrakshi Ray, David W. Aha, J. Gregory Trafton
Autom. Softw. Eng.6
2014 Learning Unknown Event Models
abstract
Agents with incomplete environment models are likely to be surprised, and this represents an opportunity to learn. We investigate approaches for situated agents to detect surprises, discriminate among different forms of surprise, and hypothesize new models for the unknown events that surprised them. We instantiate these approaches in a new goal reasoning agent (named FoolMeTwice), investigate its performance in simulation studies, and report that it produces plans with significantly reduced execution cost in comparison to not learning models for surprising events.
Matthew Molineaux, David W. Aha
AAAI2
2014 Case-Based Parameter Selection for Plans: Coordinating Autonomous Vehicle Teams
Bryan Auslander, Tom Apker, David W. Aha
ICCBR3
2014 How Much Do You Trust Me? Learning a Case-Based Model of Inverse Trust
Michael W. Floyd, Michael Drinkwater, David W. Aha
ICCBR3
2014 Case-Based Plan Recognition Using Action Sequence Graphs
Swaroop Vattam, David W. Aha, Michael W. Floyd
ICCBR2
2014 Adapting Autonomous Behavior Using an Inverse Trust Estimation
Michael W. Floyd, Michael Drinkwater, David W. Aha
ICCSA (1)3
2013 Labels or attributes?: rethinking the neighbors for collective classification in sparsely-labeled networks
abstract
Many classification tasks involve linked nodes, such as people connected by friendship links. For such networks, accuracy might be increased by including, for each node, the (a) labels or (b) attributes of neighboring nodes as model features. Recent work has focused on option (a), because early work showed it was more accurate and because option (b) fit poorly with discriminative classifiers. We show, however, that when the network is sparsely labeled, "relational classification" based on neighbor attributes often has higher accuracy than "collective classification" based on neighbor labels. Moreover, we introduce an efficient method that enables discriminative classifiers to be used with neighbor attributes, yielding further accuracy gains. We show that these effects are consistent across a range of datasets, learning choices, and inference algorithms, and that using both neighbor attributes and labels often produces the best accuracy.
Luke K. McDowell, David W. Aha
CIKM2
2013 Spontaneous Analogy by Piggybacking on a Perceptual System
Marc Pickett, David W. Aha
CogSci2
2013 Case-Based Goal-Driven Coordination of Multiple Learning Agents
Ulit Jaidee, Hector Muñoz-Avila, David W. Aha
ICCBR3
2013 Detecting Bot-Answerable Questions in Ubuntu Chat
David C. Uthus, David W. Aha
IJCNLP2
2013 Multiparticipant chat analysis: A survey
David C. Uthus, David W. Aha
Artif. Intell.2
2013 Goal-Driven Autonomy for Responding to Unexpected Events in Strategy Simulations
abstract
To operate autonomously in complex environments, an agent must monitor its environment and determine how to respond to new situations. To be considered intelligent, an agent should select actions in pursuit of its goals, and adapt accordingly when its goals need revision. However, most agents assume that their goals are given to them; they cannot recognize when their goals should change. Thus, they have difficulty coping with the complex environments of strategy simulations that are continuous, partially observable, dynamic, and open with respect to new objects. To increase intelligent agent autonomy, we are investigating a conceptual model for goal reasoning called Goal‐Driven Autonomy (GDA), which allows agents to generate and reason about their goals in response to environment changes. Our hypothesis is that GDA enables an agent to respond more effectively to unexpected events in complex environments. We instantiate the GDA model in ARTUE (Autonomous Response to Unexpected Events), a domain‐independent autonomous agent. We evaluate ARTUE on scenarios from two complex strategy simulations, and report on its comparative benefits and limitations. By employing goal reasoning, ARTUE outperforms an off‐line planner and a discrepancy‐based replanner on scenarios requiring reasoning about unobserved objects and facts and on scenarios presenting opportunities outside the scope of its current mission.
Matthew Klenk 0001, Matthew Molineaux, David W. Aha
Comput. Intell.3
2012 Learning and Reusing Goal-Specific Policies for Goal-Driven Autonomy
Ulit Jaidee, Hector Muñoz-Avila, David W. Aha
ICCBR3
2012 Semi-Supervised Collective Classification via Hybrid Label Regularization
Luke K. McDowell, David W. Aha
ICML2
2012 Transforming Graph Data for Statistical Relational Learning
abstract
Relational data representations have become an increasingly important topic due to the recent proliferation of network datasets (e.g., social, biological, information networks) and a corresponding increase in the application of Statistical Relational Learning (SRL) algorithms to these domains. In this article, we examine and categorize techniques for transforming graph-based relational data to improve SRL algorithms. In particular, appropriate transformations of the nodes, links, and/or features of the data can dramatically affect the capabilities and results of SRL algorithms. We introduce an intuitive taxonomy for data representation transformations in relational domains that incorporates link transformation and node transformation as symmetric representation tasks. More specifically, the transformation tasks for both nodes and links include (i) predicting their existence, (ii) predicting their label or type, (iii) estimating their weight or importance, and (iv) system- atically constructing their relevant features. We motivate our taxonomy through detailed examples and use it to survey competing approaches for each of these tasks. We also dis- cuss general conditions for transforming links, nodes, and features. Finally, we highlight challenges that remain to be addressed.
Ryan Rossi, Luke K. McDowell, David W. Aha, Jennifer Neville
J. Artif. Intell. Res.3
2012 Analysis of the IJCNN 2011 UTL challenge
Isabelle Guyon, Gideon Dror, Vincent Lemaire 0001, Daniel L. Silver, Graham W. Taylor, David W. Aha
Neural Networks6
2011 Integrated Learning for Goal-Driven Autonomy
Ulit Jaidee, Hector Muñoz-Avila, David W. Aha
IJCAI3
2011 Unsupervised and transfer learning challenge
abstract
We organized a data mining challenge in “unsupervised and transfer learning” (the UTL challenge), in collaboration with the DARPA Deep Learning program. The goal of this year's challenge was to learn good data representations that can be re-used across tasks by building models that capture regularities of the input space. The representations provided by the participants were evaluated by the organizers on supervised learning “target tasks”, which were unknown to the participants. In a first phase of the challenge, the competitors were given only unlabeled data to learn their data representation. In a second phase of the challenge, the competitors were also provided with a limited amount of labeled data from “source tasks”, distinct from the “target tasks”. We made available large datasets from various application domains: handwriting recognition, image recognition, video processing, text processing, and ecology. The results indicate that learned data representation yield results significantly better than what can be achieved with raw data or data preprocessed with standard normalizations and functional transforms. The UTL challenge is part of the IJCNN 2011 competition program1. The website of the challenge remains open for submission of new methods beyond the termination of the challenge as a resource for students and researchers2.
Isabelle Guyon, Gideon Dror, Vincent Lemaire 0001, Graham W. Taylor, David W. Aha
IJCNN5
2010 Planning in Dynamic Environments: Extending HTNs with Nonlinear Continuous Effects
abstract
Planning in dynamic continuous environments requires reasoning about nonlinear continuous effects, which previous Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) planners do not support. In this paper, we extend an existing HTN planner with a new state projection algorithm. To our knowledge, this is the first HTN planner that can reason about nonlinear continuous effects. We use a wait action to instruct this planner to consider continuous effects in a given state. We also introduce a new planning domain to demonstrate the benefits of planning with nonlinear continuous effects. We compare our approach with a linear continuous effects planner and a discrete effects HTN planner on a benchmark domain, which reveals that its additional costs are largely mitigated by domain knowledge. Finally, we present an initial application of this algorithm in a practical domain, a Navy training simulation, illustrating the utility of this approach for planning in dynamic continuous environments.
Matthew Molineaux, Matthew Klenk 0001, David W. Aha
AAAI3
2010 Goal-Driven Autonomy in a Navy Strategy Simulation
abstract
Modern complex games and simulations pose many challenges for an intelligent agent, including partial observability, continuous time and effects, hostile opponents, and exogenous events. We present ARTUE (Autonomous Response to Unexpected Events), a domain-independent autonomous agent that dynamically reasons about what goals to pursue in response to unexpected circumstances in these types of environments. ARTUE integrates AI research in planning, environment monitoring, explanation, goal generation, and goal management. To explain our conceptualization of the problem ARTUE addresses, we present a new conceptual framework, goal-driven autonomy, for agents that reason about their goals. We evaluate ARTUE on scenarios in the TAO Sandbox, a Navy training simulation, and demonstrate its novel architecture, which includes components for Hierarchical Task Network planning, explanation, and goal management. Our evaluation shows that ARTUE can perform well in a complex environment and that each component is necessary and contributes to the performance of the integrated system.
Matthew Molineaux, Matthew Klenk 0001, David W. Aha
AAAI3
2010 Goal-Driven Autonomy with Case-Based Reasoning
Hector Muñoz-Avila, Ulit Jaidee, David W. Aha, Elizabeth Carter
ICCBR3
2009 Case-Based Reasoning in Transfer Learning
David W. Aha, Matthew Molineaux, Gita Reese Sukthankar
ICCBR1
2009 Case-Based Collective Inference for Maritime Object Classification
Kalyan Moy Gupta, David W. Aha, Philip Moore 0002
ICCBR2
2009 Cautious Collective Classification
Luke K. McDowell, Kalyan Moy Gupta, David W. Aha
J. Mach. Learn. Res.3
2008 Enabling the Interoperability of Large-Scale Legacy Systems
Kalyan Moy Gupta, Michael Zang, Adam Gray, David W. Aha, Joe Kriege
AAAI4
2008 IMT: A Mixed-Initiative Data Mapping and Search Toolkit
Michael Zang, Adam Gray, Joe Kriege, Kalyan Moy Gupta, David W. Aha
AAAI5
2008 Soft computing techniques for web services brokering
Roy Ladner, Fred Petry, Kalyan Moy Gupta, Elizabeth Warner, Philip Moore 0002, David W. Aha
Soft Comput.6
2007 Cautious Inference in Collective Classification
Luke K. McDowell, Kalyan Moy Gupta, David W. Aha
AAAI3
2007 Mixed-Initiative Relaxation of Constraints in Critiquing Dialogues
David McSherry, David W. Aha
ICCBR2
2007 The Ins and Outs of Critiquing
David McSherry, David W. Aha
IJCAI2
2007 Knowledge acquisition for adaptive game AI
Marc J. V. Ponsen, Pieter Spronck, Hector Muñoz-Avila, David W. Aha
Sci. Comput. Program.4
2005 TIELT: A Testbed for Gaming Environments
Matthew Molineaux, David W. Aha
AAAI2
2005 Automatically Acquiring Domain Knowledge For Adaptive Game AI Using Evolutionary Learning
Marc J. V. Ponsen, Hector Muñoz-Avila, Pieter Spronck, David W. Aha
AAAI4
2005 Learning to Win: Case-Based Plan Selection in a Real-Time Strategy Game
David W. Aha, Matthew Molineaux, Marc J. V. Ponsen
ICCBR1
2005 Learning approximate preconditions for methods in hierarchical plans
abstract
A significant challenge in developing planning systems for practical applications is the difficulty of acquiring the domain knowledge needed by such systems. One method for acquiring this knowledge is to learn it from plan traces, but this method typically requires a huge number of plan traces to converge. In this paper, we show that the problem with slow convergence can be circumvented by having the learner generate solution plans even before the planning domain is completely learned. Our empirical results show that these improvements reduce the size of the training set that is needed to find correct answers to a large percentage of planning problems in the test set. 1.
Okhtay Ilghami, Hector Muñoz-Avila, Dana S. Nau, David W. Aha
ICML4
2005 Learning Preconditions for Planning from Plan Traces and HTN Structure
abstract
A great challenge in developing planning systems for practical applications is the difficulty of acquiring the domain information needed to guide such systems. This paper describes a way to learn some of that knowledge. More specifically, the following points are discussed. (1) We introduce a theoretical basis for formally defining algorithms that learn preconditions for Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) methods. (2) We describe Candidate Elimination Method Learner (CaMeL), a supervised, eager, and incremental learning process for preconditions of HTN methods. We state and prove theorems about CaMeL's soundness, completeness, and convergence properties. (3) We present empirical results about CaMeL's convergence under various conditions. Among other things, CaMeL converges the fastest on the preconditions of the HTN methods that are needed the most often. Thus CaMeL's output can be useful even before it has fully converged.
Okhtay Ilghami, Dana S. Nau, Hector Muñoz-Avila, David W. Aha
Comput. Intell.4
2003 Assessing Elaborated Hypotheses: An Interpretive Case-Based Reasoning Approach
J. William Murdock, David W. Aha, Len Breslow
ICCBR2
2003 Intelligent delivery of military lessons learned
Rosina O. Weber, David W. Aha
Decis. Support Syst.2
2002 Intelligent elicitation of military lessons
abstract
We introduce LET (Lesson Elicitation Tool), which uses domain and linguistic knowledge to guide users during their submission of lessons learned. LET can detect a user's need for instructions and disambiguates expressions while collecting taxonomic domain knowledge.
Rosina O. Weber, David W. Aha
IUI2
2001 Bridging the Lesson Distribution Gap
David W. Aha, Rosina O. Weber, Hector Muñoz-Avila, Len Breslow, Kalyan Moy Gupta
IJCAI1
2001 SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition
Hector Muñoz-Avila, David W. Aha, Dana S. Nau, Rosina O. Weber, Len Breslow, Fusun Yaman
IJCAI2
2001 Conversational Case-Based Reasoning
David W. Aha, Len Breslow, Hector Muñoz-Avila
Appl. Intell.1
2001 Introduction: Interactive Case-Based Reasoning
David W. Aha, Hector Muñoz-Avila
Appl. Intell.1
2001 Intelligent lessons learned systems
Rosina O. Weber, David W. Aha, Irma Becerra
Expert Syst. Appl.2
2000 An Intelligent Lessons Learned Process
Rosina O. Weber, David W. Aha, Hector Muñoz-Avila, Len Breslow
ISMIS2
1999 Using Guidelines to Constrain Interactive Case-Based HTN Planning
Hector Muñoz-Avila, Daniel C. McFarlane, David W. Aha, Len Breslow, James A. Ballas, Dana S. Nau
ICCBR3
1998 Error-Correcting Output Codes for Local Learners
Francesco Ricci 0001, David W. Aha
ECML2
1998 A Probabilistic Framework for Memory-Based Reasoning
Simon Kasif, Steven Salzberg, David L. Waltz, John Rachlin, David W. Aha
Artif. Intell.5
1998 The omnipresence of case-based reasoning in science and application
David W. Aha
Knowl. Based Syst.1
1997 Case-Based Learning: Beyond Classification of Feature Vectors
David W. Aha, Dietrich Wettschereck
ECML1
1997 Refining Conversational Case Libraries
David W. Aha, Len Breslow
ICCBR1
1995 Weighting Features
Dietrich Wettschereck, David W. Aha
ICCBR2
1995 Stratified Case-Based Reasoning: Reusing Hierarchical Problem Solving Episodes
Karl Branting, David W. Aha
IJCAI2
1994 Inverting Implication with Small Training Sets
David W. Aha, Stephane Lapointe, Charles Ling 0001, Stan Matwin
ECML1
1994 Learning Recursive Relations with Randomly Selected Small Training Sets
David W. Aha, Stephane Lapointe, Charles Ling 0001, Stan Matwin
ICML1
1994 Towards a Better Understanding of Memory-based Reasoning Systems
John Rachlin, Simon Kasif, Steven Salzberg, David W. Aha
ICML4
1992 Generalizing from Case studies: A Case Study
David W. Aha
ML1
1992 Tolerating Noisy, Irrelevant and Novel Attributes in Instance-Based Learning Algorithms
David W. Aha
Int. J. Man Mach. Stud.1
1991 Analyses of Instance-Based Learning Algorithms
Marc K. Albert, David W. Aha
AAAI2
1991 Incremental Constructive Induction: An Instance-Based Approach
David W. Aha
ML1
1991 Instance-Based Learning Algorithms
David W. Aha, Dennis F. Kibler, Marc K. Albert
Mach. Learn.1
1989 Incremental, Instance-Based Learning of Independent and Graded Concept Descriptions
David W. Aha
ML1
1989 Noise-Tolerant Instance-Based Learning Algorithms
David W. Aha, Dennis F. Kibler
IJCAI1
1989 Instance-based prediction of real-valued attributes
abstract
Instance‐based representations have been applied to numerous classification tasks with some success. Most of these applications involved predicting a symbolic class based on observed attributes. This paper presents an instance‐based method for predicting a numeric value based on observed attributes. We prove that, given enough instances, if the numeric values are generated by continuous functions with bounded slope, then the predicted values are accurate approximations of the actual values. We demonstrate the utility of this approach by comparing it with a standard approach for value prediction. The instance‐based approach requires neither ad hoc parameters nor background knowledge.
Dennis F. Kibler, David W. Aha, Marc K. Albert
Comput. Intell.2