EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Bita Banihashemi
dblp:02/3321
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
8as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-7147-484XORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 7 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 5 · 5 first-author · 2 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author
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
7 papers |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 77% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 19% Multi-agent systems · 4% | |
| Theoretical computer science
3 papers |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Programming languages and type systems · 100% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change › reasoning about actions
situation calculus |
2.4 | 5 | 2025 | Abstracting situation calculus action theories · Artif. Intell. 2025 Abstraction of Nondeterministic Situation Calculus Action Theories · IJCAI 2023 Abstraction of Agents Executing Online and their Abilities in the Situation Calculus · IJCAI 2018 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
reasoning about actions |
1.2 | 3 | 2023 | Abstraction of Nondeterministic Situation Calculus Action Theories · IJCAI 2023 Abstraction of Agents Executing Online and their Abilities in the Situation Calculus · IJCAI 2018 Online Agent Supervision in the Situation Calculus · IJCAI 2016 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change
action theories |
1.2 | 2 | 2025 | Abstracting situation calculus action theories · Artif. Intell. 2025 Abstraction in Situation Calculus Action Theories · AAAI 2017 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › nondeterministic planning
fully observable non-deterministic planning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Abstraction of Nondeterministic Situation Calculus Action Theories · IJCAI 2023 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
nondeterministic planning |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Abstraction of Nondeterministic Situation Calculus Action Theories · IJCAI 2023 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › causal reasoning
actual causality |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | From Actions to Programs as Abstract Actual Causes · AAAI 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
causal reasoning |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | From Actions to Programs as Abstract Actual Causes · AAAI 2022 |
Programming languages and type systems
language semantics |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | From Actions to Programs as Abstract Actual Causes · AAAI 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
reasoning about action and change |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Online Situation-Determined Agents and their Supervision · KR 2016 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
situation calculus · 3.9congolog · 2.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Abstracting situation calculus action theories
Bita Banihashemi, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance |
Artif. Intell. | 1 |
| 2023 | Abstraction of Nondeterministic Situation Calculus Action TheoriesabstractWe develop a general framework for abstracting the behavior of an agent that operates in a nondeterministic domain, i.e., where the agent does not control the outcome of the nondeterministic actions, based on the nondeterministic situation calculus and the ConGolog programming language. We assume that we have both an abstract and a concrete nondeterministic basic action theory, and a refinement mapping which specifies how abstract actions, decomposed into agent actions and environment reactions, are implemented by concrete ConGolog programs. This new setting supports strategic reasoning and strategy synthesis, by allowing us to quantify separately on agent actions and environment reactions. We show that if the agent has a (strong FOND) plan/strategy to achieve a goal/complete a task at the abstract level, and it can always execute the nondeterministic abstract actions to completion at the concrete level, then there exist a refinement of it that is a (strong FOND) plan/strategy to achieve the refinement of the goal/task at the concrete level. Bita Banihashemi, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2022 | From Actions to Programs as Abstract Actual Causes
Bita Banihashemi, Shakil M. Khan 0001, Mikhail Soutchanski |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2020 | Towards an Approach for Validating the Internet-of-Transactional-Things
Zakaria Maamar, Mohamed Sellami, Nanjangud C. Narendra, Ikbel Guidara, Emir Ugljanin, Bita Banihashemi |
AINA | 6 |
| 2020 | Thing Mutation as a Countermeasure to Safeguard IoTabstractIn the Internet of Things (IoT), mutation aims to enhance functionality and survivability of a thing in the context of dynamic environments by allowing the thing to satisfy a need or seize a potential opportunity. In this paper, we propose a framework based on thing mutation as a countermeasure to certain security threats that could impact things' operations (e.g., sensing and communicating). We then provide a case study which focuses on battery draining attack and propose a mutation-based strategy as a countermeasure to this attack. Bita Banihashemi, Zakaria Maamar, Noura Faci, Emir Ugljanin |
MEDES | 1 |
| 2018 | Abstraction of Agents Executing Online and their Abilities in the Situation CalculusabstractWe develop a general framework for abstracting online behavior of an agent that may acquire new knowledge during execution (e.g., by sensing), in the situation calculus and ConGolog. We assume that we have both a high-level action theory and a low-level one that represent the agent's behavior at different levels of detail. In this setting, we define ability to perform a task/achieve a goal, and then show that under some reasonable assumptions, if the agent has a strategy by which she is able to achieve a goal at the high level, then we can refine it into a low-level strategy to do so. Bita Banihashemi, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2017 | Abstraction in Situation Calculus Action Theories
Bita Banihashemi, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2016 | Online Agent Supervision in the Situation Calculus
Bita Banihashemi, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2016 | Online Situation-Determined Agents and their Supervision
Bita Banihashemi, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance |
KR | 1 |
| 2008 | Arguments in OWL: A Progress Report
Iyad Rahwan, Bita Banihashemi |
COMMA | 2 |