Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Marco Foschini

dblp:385/7210 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
0000-0001-6548-6417ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

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
1 paper
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 50% Multi-agent systems · 50%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-AI interaction · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
explanation generation
1.012026
Preference Elicitation for Step-Wise Explanations in Logic Puzzles · AAAI 2026
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › social choice › computational social choice
preference elicitation
1.012026
Preference Elicitation for Step-Wise Explanations in Logic Puzzles · AAAI 2026
Human-AI interaction › explainable AI
explanation interfaces
0.312026
Preference Elicitation for Step-Wise Explanations in Logic Puzzles · AAAI 2026

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

perceptron · 2.0pairwise comparison · 2.0multi-armed bandit · 2.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Preference Elicitation for Step-Wise Explanations in Logic Puzzles
abstract
Step-wise explanations can explain logic puzzles and other satisfaction problems by showing how to derive decisions step by step. Each step consists of a set of constraints that derive an assignment to one or more decision variables. However, many candidate explanation steps exist, with different sets of constraints and different decisions they derive. To identify the most comprehensible one, a user-defined objective function is required to quantify the quality of each step. However, defining a good objective function is challenging. Here, interactive preference elicitation methods from the wider machine learning community can offer a way to learn user preferences from pairwise comparisons. We investigate the feasibility of this approach for step-wise explanations and address several limitations that distinguish it from elicitation for standard combinatorial problems. First, because the explanation quality is measured using multiple sub-objectives that can vary a lot in scale, we propose two dynamic normalization techniques to rescale these features and stabilize the learning process. We also observed that many generated comparisons involve similar explanations. For this reason, we introduce MACHOP (Multi-Armed CHOice Perceptron), a novel query generation strategy that integrates non-domination constraints with upper confidence bound-based diversification. We evaluate the elicitation techniques on Sudokus and Logic-Grid puzzles using artificial users, and validate them with a real-user evaluation. In both settings, MACHOP consistently produces higher-quality explanations than the standard approach.
Marco Foschini, Marianne Defresne, Emilio Gamba, Bart Bogaerts 0001, Tias Guns
AAAI1
2026 From CP Modeling to Preference Elicitation in HMLV Assembly Problems
abstract
High Mix Low Volume (HMLV) assembly problems involve producing a variety of items in small quantities, each of which requires scheduling a sequence of actions performed by machines or human operators. For the production process, companies are increasingly adopting reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMS) where they choose which machines to deploy. Importantly, the selection of machines can substantially influence overall production time. For this reason, we present a CP model for solving HMLV for RMS. However, solely minimizing makespan does not necessarily yield the most desirable solution from a managerial perspective. For example, it may heavily rely on human operators. Since determining preferred solutions is challenging, incorporating Decision Maker (DM) feedback becomes essential. Therefore, to support DMs in selecting solutions that better reflect their preferences, we adapt pairwise preference elicitation methods for this industrial multi-objective combinatorial problem, while also comparing with trade-off-based methods.
Marco Foschini, Emilio Gamba, Lucas Kletzander, Tias Guns
CP1
2024 Decision-Focused Learning to Predict Action Costs for Planning
abstract
In many automated planning applications, action costs can be hard to specify. An example is the time needed to travel through a certain road segment, which depends on many factors, such as the current weather conditions. A natural way to address this issue is to learn to predict these parameters based on input features (e.g., weather forecasts) and use the predicted action costs in automated planning afterward. Decision-Focused Learning (DFL) has been successful in learning to predict the parameters of combinatorial optimization problems in a way that optimizes solution quality rather than prediction quality. This approach yields better results than treating prediction and optimization as separate tasks. In this paper, we investigate for the first time the challenges of implementing DFL for automated planning in order to learn to predict the action costs. There are two main challenges to overcome: (1) planning systems are called during gradient descent learning, to solve planning problems with negative action costs, which are not supported in planning. We propose novel methods for gradient computation to avoid this issue. (2) DFL requires repeated planner calls during training, which can limit the scalability of the method. We experiment with different methods approximating the optimal plan as well as an easy-to-implement caching mechanism to speed up the learning process. As the first work that addresses DFL for automated planning, we demonstrate that the proposed gradient computation consistently yields significantly better plans than predictions aimed at minimizing prediction error; and that caching can temper the computation requirements.
Jayanta Mandi, Marco Foschini, Daniel Höller, Sylvie Thiébaux, Jörg Hoffmann 0001, Tias Guns
ECAI2