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

Hengameh Irandoust

dblp:87/6387 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

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
2 papers
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 52% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 33% Reinforcement learning · 14%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Games and playful interaction · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
plan recognition
0.322013
Controlling the Hypothesis Space in Probabilistic Plan Recognition · IJCAI 2013
Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their Intentions · AAAI 2011
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › plan recognition
probabilistic plan recognition
0.212013
Controlling the Hypothesis Space in Probabilistic Plan Recognition · IJCAI 2013
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › theory of mind
intention recognition
0.112011
Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their Intentions · AAAI 2011
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › multi-agent reinforcement learning
opponent modeling
0.112011
Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their Intentions · AAAI 2011
Games and playful interaction › game AI
video game agents
0.012011
Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their Intentions · AAAI 2011

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

plan recognition · 0.2probabilistic inference · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 Controlling the Hypothesis Space in Probabilistic Plan Recognition
Froduald Kabanza, Julien Filion, Abder Rezak Benaskeur, Hengameh Irandoust
IJCAI4
2011 Provoking Opponents to Facilitate the Recognition of their Intentions
abstract
Possessing a sufficient level of situation awareness is essential for effective decision making in dynamic environments. In video games, this includes being aware to some extent of the intentions of the opponents. Such high-level awareness hinges upon inferences over the lower-level situation awareness provided by the game state. Traditional plan recognizers are completely passive processes that leave all the initiative to the observed agent. In a situation where the opponent's intentions are unclear, the observer is forced to wait until further observations of the opponent's actions are made to disambiguate the pending goal hypotheses. With the plan recognizer we propose, in contrast, the observer would take the initiative and provoke the opponent, with the expectation that his reaction will give cues as to what his true intentions actually are.
Francis Bisson, Froduald Kabanza, Abder Rezak Benaskeur, Hengameh Irandoust
AAAI4
2007 Holonic control-based Sensor management
abstract
This paper discusses the application of holonic control paradigm to sensor management in military surveillance operations. Sensor management is described both as part of the data fusion process and as a control problem. The choice of holonic control as the most adequate architecture for sensor management in the military environment is explained and its application to surveillance operations illustrated. Holonic control is then simulated using a littoral surveillance scenario to test sensor management with and without feedback from high-level fusion (closed-loop versus open-loop). The results show that closed-loop sensor management significantly enhances global surveillance performance, reduces detection time of threatening objects, and reduces platforms' load, thus increasing stealth and decreasing detectability.
Abder Rezak Benaskeur, Hengameh Irandoust, Peter F. McGuire, Robert W. Brennan
FUSION2