Alberto Camacho

dblp:180/9168 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
9as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 9 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 6 · 6 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 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
Reinforcement learning · 45% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 37% Robot manipulation · 14%
Theoretical computer science
6 papers
Logic in computer science · 52% Automated reasoning and model checking · 38% Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 9%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program synthesis and code generation · 100%

Topics — the 17 heaviest of 23, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Logic in computer science
temporal logic
1.132019
Strong Fully Observable Non-Deterministic Planning with LTL and LTLf Goals · IJCAI 2019
LTL and Beyond: Formal Languages for Reward Function Specification in Reinforcement Learning · IJCAI 2019
Finite LTL Synthesis with Environment Assumptions and Quality Measures · KR 2018
Logic in computer science › temporal logic
linear temporal logic
0.832019
Strong Fully Observable Non-Deterministic Planning with LTL and LTLf Goals · IJCAI 2019
LTL and Beyond: Formal Languages for Reward Function Specification in Reinforcement Learning · IJCAI 2019
Non-Deterministic Planning with Temporally Extended Goals: LTL over Finite and Infinite Traces · AAAI 2017
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
nondeterministic planning
0.722019
Strong Fully Observable Non-Deterministic Planning with LTL and LTLf Goals · IJCAI 2019
Non-Deterministic Planning with Temporally Extended Goals: LTL over Finite and Infinite Traces · AAAI 2017
Automated reasoning and model checking › synthesis › temporal logic synthesis
LTL synthesis
0.722018
Finite LTL Synthesis with Environment Assumptions and Quality Measures · KR 2018
SynKit: LTL Synthesis as a Service · IJCAI 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
deep reinforcement learning
0.512021
Reward Machines for Vision-Based Robotic Manipulation · ICRA 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reward design
reward shaping
0.512021
Reward Machines for Vision-Based Robotic Manipulation · ICRA 2021
Robotics › Robot manipulation › robot vision
vision-based manipulation
0.512021
Reward Machines for Vision-Based Robotic Manipulation · ICRA 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
reward design
0.412019
LTL and Beyond: Formal Languages for Reward Function Specification in Reinforcement Learning · IJCAI 2019
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reward design
reward machine
0.412019
LTL and Beyond: Formal Languages for Reward Function Specification in Reinforcement Learning · IJCAI 2019
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › temporal planning
temporal goal specification
0.422019
Planning under Uncertainty and Temporally Extended Goals · IJCAI 2016
Strong Fully Observable Non-Deterministic Planning with LTL and LTLf Goals · IJCAI 2019
Program synthesis and code generation › controller synthesis
reactive synthesis
0.312018
Finite LTL Synthesis with Environment Assumptions and Quality Measures · KR 2018
Automated reasoning and model checking
synthesis
0.312018
LTL Realizability via Safety and Reachability Games · IJCAI 2018
Automated reasoning and model checking › synthesis
temporal logic synthesis
0.312018
SynKit: LTL Synthesis as a Service · IJCAI 2018
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › temporal planning
temporally extended goals
0.312017
Non-Deterministic Planning with Temporally Extended Goals: LTL over Finite and Infinite Traces · AAAI 2017
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
planning under uncertainty
0.212016
Planning under Uncertainty and Temporally Extended Goals · IJCAI 2016
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › motion planning › manipulation planning
long-horizon manipulation
0.112021
Reward Machines for Vision-Based Robotic Manipulation · ICRA 2021
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › sample efficiency
sample-efficient reinforcement learning
0.112019
LTL and Beyond: Formal Languages for Reward Function Specification in Reinforcement Learning · IJCAI 2019

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

RESTful API · 1.0unsolvability proofs · 0.8strategy synthesis · 0.8reward shaping · 0.8q-learning · 0.8automata-based reward representation · 0.8reachability games · 0.7bounded synthesis · 0.7automated planning · 0.7reward machines · 0.5deep q-learning · 0.5web services · 0.3web service · 0.3safety games · 0.3quality measures · 0.3LTL synthesis · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Reward Machines for Vision-Based Robotic Manipulation
abstract
Deep Q learning (DQN) has enabled robot agents to accomplish vision based tasks that seemed out of reach. Despite recent success stories, there are still several sources of computational complexity that challenge the performance of DQN. We place the focus on vision manipulation tasks, where the correct action selection is often predicated on a small number of pixels. We observe that in some of these tasks DQN does not converge to the optimal Q function, and their values do not separate well optimal and suboptimal actions. In consequence, the policies obtained with DQN tend to be brittle and manifest a low success rate, especially in long horizon tasks. In this work we show the benefits of Reward Machines (RMs) for Deep Q learning (DQRM) in vision based robot manipulation tasks. Reward machines decompose the task at an abstract level, inform the agent about their current stage along task completion, and guide them via dense rewards. We show that RMs help DQN learn the optimal Q values in each abstract state. Their policies are more robust, manifest higher success rate, and are learned with fewer training steps compared with DQN. The benefits of RMs are more evident in long-horizon tasks, where we show that DQRM is able to learn good-quality policies with six times times fewer training steps than DQN, even when this is equipped with dense reward shaping.
Alberto Camacho, Jacob Varley, Andy Zeng 0001, Deepali Jain, Atil Iscen, Dmitry Kalashnikov
ICRA1
2019 LTL and Beyond: Formal Languages for Reward Function Specification in Reinforcement Learning
abstract
In Reinforcement Learning (RL), an agent is guided by the rewards it receives from the reward function. Unfortunately, it may take many interactions with the environment to learn from sparse rewards, and it can be challenging to specify reward functions that reflect complex reward-worthy behavior. We propose using reward machines (RMs), which are automata-based representations that expose reward function structure, as a normal form representation for reward functions. We show how specifications of reward in various formal languages, including LTL and other regular languages, can be automatically translated into RMs, easing the burden of complex reward function specification. We then show how the exposed structure of the reward function can be exploited by tailored q-learning algorithms and automated reward shaping techniques in order to improve the sample efficiency of reinforcement learning methods. Experiments show that these RM-tailored techniques significantly outperform state-of-the-art (deep) RL algorithms, solving problems that otherwise cannot reasonably be solved by existing approaches.
Alberto Camacho, Rodrigo Toro Icarte, Toryn Q. Klassen, Richard Anthony Valenzano, Sheila A. McIlraith
IJCAI1
2019 Strong Fully Observable Non-Deterministic Planning with LTL and LTLf Goals
abstract
We are concerned with the synthesis of strategies for sequential decision-making in non-deterministic dynamical environments where the objective is to satisfy a prescribed temporally extended goal. We frame this task as a Fully Observable Non-Deterministic planning problem with the goal expressed in Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), or LTL interpreted over finite traces (LTLf). While the problem is well-studied theoretically, existing algorithmic solutions typically compute so-called strong-cyclic solutions, which are predicated on an assumption of fairness. In this paper we introduce novel algorithms to compute so-called strong solutions, that guarantee goal satisfaction even in the absence of fairness. Our strategy generation algorithms are complemented with novel mechanisms to obtain proofs of unsolvability. We implemented and evaluated the performance of our approaches in a selection of domains with LTL and LTLf goals.
Alberto Camacho, Sheila A. McIlraith
IJCAI1
2018 LTL Realizability via Safety and Reachability Games
abstract
In this paper, we address the problem of LTL realizability and synthesis. State of the art techniques rely on so-called bounded synthesis methods, which reduce the problem to a safety game. Realizability is determined by solving synthesis in a dual game. We provide a unified view of duality, and introduce novel bounded realizability methods via reductions to reachability games. Further, we introduce algorithms, based on AI automated planning, to solve these safety and reachability games. This is the the first complete approach to LTL realizability and synthesis via automated planning. Experiments illustrate that reductions to reachability games are an alternative to reductions to safety games, and show that planning can be a competitive approach to LTL realizability and synthesis.
Alberto Camacho, Christian J. Muise, Jorge A. Baier, Sheila A. McIlraith
IJCAI1
2018 SynKit: LTL Synthesis as a Service
abstract
Automatic synthesis of software from specification is one of the classic problems in computer science. In the last decade, significant advances have been made in the synthesis of programs from specifications expressed in Linear Temporal Logic (LTL). LTL synthesis technology is central to a myriad of applications from the automated generation of controllers for Internet of Things devices, to the synthesis of control software for robotic applications. Unfortunately, the number of existing tools for LTL synthesis is limited, and using them requires specialized expertise. In this paper we present SynKit, a tool that offers LTL synthesis as a service. SynKit integrates a RESTful API and a web service with an editor, a solver, and a strategy visualizer.
Alberto Camacho, Christian J. Muise, Jorge A. Baier, Sheila A. McIlraith
IJCAI1
2018 Finite LTL Synthesis with Environment Assumptions and Quality Measures
Alberto Camacho, Meghyn Bienvenu, Sheila A. McIlraith
KR1
2017 Non-Deterministic Planning with Temporally Extended Goals: LTL over Finite and Infinite Traces
abstract
Temporally extended goals are critical to the specification of a diversity of real-world planning problems. Here we examine the problem of non-deterministic planning with temporally extended goals specified in linear temporal logic (LTL), interpreted over either finite or infinite traces. Unlike existing LTL planners, we place no restrictions on our LTL formulae beyond those necessary to distinguish finite from infinite interpretations. We generate plans by compiling LTL temporally extended goals into problem instances described in the Planning Domain Definition Language that are solved by a state-of-the-art fully observable non-deterministic planner. We propose several different compilations based on translations of LTL to (Büchi) alternating or (Büchi) non-deterministic finite state automata, and evaluate various properties of the competing approaches. We address a diverse spectrum of LTL planning problems that, to this point, had not been solvable using AI planning techniques, and do so in a manner that demonstrates highly competitive performance.
Alberto Camacho, Eleni Triantafillou, Christian J. Muise, Jorge A. Baier, Sheila A. McIlraith
AAAI1
2017 Non-Markovian Rewards Expressed in LTL: Guiding Search Via Reward Shaping
abstract
We propose an approach to solving Markov Decision Processes with non-Markovian rewards specified in Linear Temporal Logic interpreted over finite traces (LTL-f). Our approach integrates automata representations of LTL-f formulae into compiled MDPs that can be solved by off-the-shelf MDP planners, exploiting reward shaping to help guide search. Experiments with state-of-the-art UCT-based MDP planner PROST show automata-based reward shaping to be an effective method to guide search, producing solutions of superior quality, while maintaining policy optimality guarantees.
Alberto Camacho, Oscar Chen, Scott Sanner, Sheila A. McIlraith
SOCS1
2016 Planning under Uncertainty and Temporally Extended Goals
Alberto Camacho
IJCAI1