VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
David W. Aha
dblp:25/557 · also David William Aha
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
hierarchical planning |
1.1 | 7 | 2017 | 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 |
0.8 | 4 | 2017 | 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 |
0.3 | 5 | 2015 | 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 |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Comparing Reward Shaping, Visual Hints, and Curriculum Learning · AAAI 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
deep reinforcement learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Comparing Reward Shaping, Visual Hints, and Curriculum Learning · AAAI 2018 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reward design
reward shaping |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Comparing Reward Shaping, Visual Hints, and Curriculum Learning · AAAI 2018 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning
domain-independent planning |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Incorporating Domain-Independent Planning Heuristics in Hierarchical Planning · AAAI 2017 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › heuristic search
planning heuristics |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Incorporating Domain-Independent Planning Heuristics in Hierarchical Planning · AAAI 2017 |
Human-AI interaction › responsible AI
AI ethics |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | The AI Rebellion: Changing the Narrative · AAAI 2017 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › hierarchical problem solving
task decomposition |
0.3 | 2 | 2016 | 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 |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | 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 |
0.2 | 2 | 2011 | 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 |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Tight Bounds for HTN Planning with Task Insertion · IJCAI 2015 |
Machine learning › Graph learning › graph neural network › node classification
collective classification |
0.2 | 2 | 2012 | Semi-Supervised Collective Classification via Hybrid Label Regularization · ICML 2012 Cautious Inference in Collective Classification · AAAI 2007 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
semi-supervised learning |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Semi-Supervised Collective Classification via Hybrid Label Regularization · ICML 2012 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
autonomous agents |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | The AI Rebellion: Changing the Narrative · AAAI 2017 |
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
state prediction |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | A Goal Reasoning Agent for Controlling UAVs in Beyond-Visual-Range Air Combat · IJCAI 2017 |
Data integration and cleaning
data mapping |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | IMT: A Mixed-Initiative Data Mapping and Search Toolkit · AAAI 2008 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › agent architecture
situated agents |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | Learning Unknown Event Models · AAAI 2014 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › knowledge acquisition
domain knowledge acquisition |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Automatically Acquiring Domain Knowledge For Adaptive Game AI Using Evolutionary Learning · AAAI 2005 |
Usability and user experience research
testbed |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | TIELT: A Testbed for Gaming Environments · AAAI 2005 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › dialogue analysis
conversational text analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 2013 | Multiparticipant chat analysis: A survey · Artif. Intell. 2013 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
agent architecture |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Goal-Driven Autonomy in a Navy Strategy Simulation · AAAI 2010 |
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
dynamic environments |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | 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 |
0.0 | 2 | 1998 | 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 |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | SiN: Integrating Case-based Reasoning with Task Decomposition · IJCAI 2001 |
Human-AI interaction
mixed-initiative interaction |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | IMT: A Mixed-Initiative Data Mapping and Search Toolkit · AAAI 2008 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › population-based learning
evolutionary learning |
0.0 | 1 | 2005 | Automatically Acquiring Domain Knowledge For Adaptive Game AI Using Evolutionary Learning · AAAI 2005 |
Machine learning › Learning paradigms
incremental learning |
0.0 | 2 | 1991 | 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 |
0.0 | 1 | 1995 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Understanding imbalanced data: XAI & interpretable ML frameworkabstractAbstract 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 |
ICCBR | 5 |
| 2018 | Comparing Reward Shaping, Visual Hints, and Curriculum LearningabstractCommon 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 |
AAAI | 4 |
| 2018 | Novel Object Discovery Using Case-Based Reasoning and Convolutional Neural Networks
J. T. Turner, Michael W. Floyd, Kalyan Moy Gupta, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 4 |
| 2017 | The AI Rebellion: Changing the NarrativeabstractSci-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 |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2017 | Incorporating Domain-Independent Planning Heuristics in Hierarchical PlanningabstractHeuristics 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 |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2017 | Case-Based Team Recognition Using Learned Opponent Models
Michael W. Floyd, Justin Karneeb, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 2017 | A Goal Reasoning Agent for Controlling UAVs in Beyond-Visual-Range Air CombatabstractWe 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 |
IJCAI | 4 |
| 2016 | Cost-Optimal Algorithms for Planning with Procedural Control KnowledgeabstractThere 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 |
ECAI | 4 |
| 2016 | Incorporating Transparency During Trust-Guided Behavior Adaptation
Michael W. Floyd, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 2 |
| 2016 | Hierarchical Planning: Relating Task and Goal Decomposition with Task Sharing
Ron Alford, Vikas Shivashankar, Mark Roberts, Jeremy Frank, David W. Aha |
IJCAI | 5 |
| 2016 | Leveraging Neighbor Attributes for Classification in Sparsely Labeled NetworksabstractMany 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. Data | 2 |
| 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 |
ICCBR | 6 |
| 2015 | Case-Based Policy and Goal Recognition
Hayley Borck, Justin Karneeb, Michael W. Floyd, Ron Alford, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 5 |
| 2015 | Improving Trust-Guided Behavior Adaptation Using Operator Feedback
Michael W. Floyd, Michael Drinkwater, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 2015 | Case-Based Plan Recognition Under Imperfect Observability
Swaroop Vattam, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 2 |
| 2015 | Tight Bounds for HTN Planning with Task Insertion
Ron Alford, Pascal Bercher, David W. Aha |
IJCAI | 3 |
| 2015 | Trust-Guided Behavior Adaptation Using Case-Based Reasoning
Michael W. Floyd, Michael Drinkwater, David W. Aha |
IJCAI | 3 |
| 2015 | Tight Bounds for HTN Planning with Task Insertion (Extended Abstract)abstractHierarchical 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 |
SOCS | 3 |
| 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 ModelsabstractAgents 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 |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2014 | Case-Based Parameter Selection for Plans: Coordinating Autonomous Vehicle Teams
Bryan Auslander, Tom Apker, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 2014 | How Much Do You Trust Me? Learning a Case-Based Model of Inverse Trust
Michael W. Floyd, Michael Drinkwater, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 2014 | Case-Based Plan Recognition Using Action Sequence Graphs
Swaroop Vattam, David W. Aha, Michael W. Floyd |
ICCBR | 2 |
| 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 networksabstractMany 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 |
CIKM | 2 |
| 2013 | Spontaneous Analogy by Piggybacking on a Perceptual System
Marc Pickett, David W. Aha |
CogSci | 2 |
| 2013 | Case-Based Goal-Driven Coordination of Multiple Learning Agents
Ulit Jaidee, Hector Muñoz-Avila, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 2013 | Detecting Bot-Answerable Questions in Ubuntu Chat
David C. Uthus, David W. Aha |
IJCNLP | 2 |
| 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 SimulationsabstractTo 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 |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 2012 | Semi-Supervised Collective Classification via Hybrid Label Regularization
Luke K. McDowell, David W. Aha |
ICML | 2 |
| 2012 | Transforming Graph Data for Statistical Relational LearningabstractRelational 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 Networks | 6 |
| 2011 | Integrated Learning for Goal-Driven Autonomy
Ulit Jaidee, Hector Muñoz-Avila, David W. Aha |
IJCAI | 3 |
| 2011 | Unsupervised and transfer learning challengeabstractWe 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 |
IJCNN | 5 |
| 2010 | Planning in Dynamic Environments: Extending HTNs with Nonlinear Continuous EffectsabstractPlanning 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 |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2010 | Goal-Driven Autonomy in a Navy Strategy SimulationabstractModern 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 |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2010 | Goal-Driven Autonomy with Case-Based Reasoning
Hector Muñoz-Avila, Ulit Jaidee, David W. Aha, Elizabeth Carter |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 2009 | Case-Based Reasoning in Transfer Learning
David W. Aha, Matthew Molineaux, Gita Reese Sukthankar |
ICCBR | 1 |
| 2009 | Case-Based Collective Inference for Maritime Object Classification
Kalyan Moy Gupta, David W. Aha, Philip Moore 0002 |
ICCBR | 2 |
| 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 |
AAAI | 4 |
| 2008 | IMT: A Mixed-Initiative Data Mapping and Search Toolkit
Michael Zang, Adam Gray, Joe Kriege, Kalyan Moy Gupta, David W. Aha |
AAAI | 5 |
| 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 |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2007 | Mixed-Initiative Relaxation of Constraints in Critiquing Dialogues
David McSherry, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 2 |
| 2007 | The Ins and Outs of Critiquing
David McSherry, David W. Aha |
IJCAI | 2 |
| 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 |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2005 | Automatically Acquiring Domain Knowledge For Adaptive Game AI Using Evolutionary Learning
Marc J. V. Ponsen, Hector Muñoz-Avila, Pieter Spronck, David W. Aha |
AAAI | 4 |
| 2005 | Learning to Win: Case-Based Plan Selection in a Real-Time Strategy Game
David W. Aha, Matthew Molineaux, Marc J. V. Ponsen |
ICCBR | 1 |
| 2005 | Learning approximate preconditions for methods in hierarchical plansabstractA 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 |
ICML | 4 |
| 2005 | Learning Preconditions for Planning from Plan Traces and HTN StructureabstractA 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 |
ICCBR | 2 |
| 2003 | Intelligent delivery of military lessons learned
Rosina O. Weber, David W. Aha |
Decis. Support Syst. | 2 |
| 2002 | Intelligent elicitation of military lessonsabstractWe 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 |
IUI | 2 |
| 2001 | Bridging the Lesson Distribution Gap
David W. Aha, Rosina O. Weber, Hector Muñoz-Avila, Len Breslow, Kalyan Moy Gupta |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 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 |
IJCAI | 2 |
| 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 |
ISMIS | 2 |
| 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 |
ICCBR | 3 |
| 1998 | Error-Correcting Output Codes for Local Learners
Francesco Ricci 0001, David W. Aha |
ECML | 2 |
| 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 |
ECML | 1 |
| 1997 | Refining Conversational Case Libraries
David W. Aha, Len Breslow |
ICCBR | 1 |
| 1995 | Weighting Features
Dietrich Wettschereck, David W. Aha |
ICCBR | 2 |
| 1995 | Stratified Case-Based Reasoning: Reusing Hierarchical Problem Solving Episodes
Karl Branting, David W. Aha |
IJCAI | 2 |
| 1994 | Inverting Implication with Small Training Sets
David W. Aha, Stephane Lapointe, Charles Ling 0001, Stan Matwin |
ECML | 1 |
| 1994 | Learning Recursive Relations with Randomly Selected Small Training Sets
David W. Aha, Stephane Lapointe, Charles Ling 0001, Stan Matwin |
ICML | 1 |
| 1994 | Towards a Better Understanding of Memory-based Reasoning Systems
John Rachlin, Simon Kasif, Steven Salzberg, David W. Aha |
ICML | 4 |
| 1992 | Generalizing from Case studies: A Case Study
David W. Aha |
ML | 1 |
| 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 |
AAAI | 2 |
| 1991 | Incremental Constructive Induction: An Instance-Based Approach
David W. Aha |
ML | 1 |
| 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 |
ML | 1 |
| 1989 | Noise-Tolerant Instance-Based Learning Algorithms
David W. Aha, Dennis F. Kibler |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 1989 | Instance-based prediction of real-valued attributesabstractInstance‐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 |