Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Patrick Ferber
dblp:230/3785
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
3as first author
5since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-2794-0126ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 8 · 3 first-author · 5 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 6 · 3 first-author · 3 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
6 papers |
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 86% Trustworthy machine learning · 7% Graph learning · 5% |
Topics — the 12 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › heuristic search › best-first search
greedy best-first search |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Guiding GBFS through Learned Pairwise Rankings · IJCAI 2024 Learning and Exploiting Progress States in Greedy Best-First Search · IJCAI 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
heuristic search |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Guiding GBFS through Learned Pairwise Rankings · IJCAI 2024 Learning and Exploiting Progress States in Greedy Best-First Search · IJCAI 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
classical planning |
1.1 | 2 | 2022 | Learning and Exploiting Progress States in Greedy Best-First Search · IJCAI 2022 Explainable Planner Selection for Classical Planning · AAAI 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › heuristic search › heuristic search planning
abstraction heuristics |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Abstraction Heuristics for Factored Tasks · ICAPS 2024 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › classical planning
conditional effects |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Abstraction Heuristics for Factored Tasks · ICAPS 2024 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning › domain-independent planning
factored planning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Abstraction Heuristics for Factored Tasks · ICAPS 2024 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning › plan optimization
optimal planning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Abstraction Heuristics for Factored Tasks · ICAPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Explainable Planner Selection for Classical Planning · AAAI 2022 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
graph neural network |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Online Planner Selection with Graph Neural Networks and Adaptive Scheduling · AAAI 2020 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › planning
portfolio-based planning |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Deep Learning for Cost-Optimal Planning: Task-Dependent Planner Selection · AAAI 2019 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
description logic |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Learning and Exploiting Progress States in Greedy Best-First Search · IJCAI 2022 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › classical planning
cost-optimal planning |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Online Planner Selection with Graph Neural Networks and Adaptive Scheduling · AAAI 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
projection · 0.8pairwise ranking learning · 0.8merge-and-shrink · 0.8domain abstraction · 0.8counterexample-guided abstraction refinement · 0.8cartesian abstraction · 0.8a* search · 0.8tie-breaking · 0.6description logic learning · 0.6adaptive scheduling · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Abstraction Heuristics for Factored TasksabstractOne of the strongest approaches for optimal classical planning is A* search with heuristics based on abstractions of the planning task. Abstraction heuristics are well studied in planning formalisms without conditional effects such as SAS+. However, conditional effects are crucial to model many planning tasks compactly. In this paper, we focus on *factored* tasks which allow a specific form of conditional effect, where effects on variable x can only depend on the value of x. We generalize projections, domain abstractions, Cartesian abstractions and the counterexample-guided abstraction refinement method to this formalism. While merge-and-shrink already covers factored task in theory, we provide an implementation that does so. In our experiments, we compare these abstraction-based heuristics to other heuristics supporting conditional effects, as well as symbolic search. On our new benchmark set of factored tasks, pattern database heuristics solve the most problems, followed by symbolic approaches on par with domain abstractions. The more general Cartesian abstractions fall behind in terms of coverage but usually solve problems the fastest among all tested approaches. The generality of merge-and-shrink abstractions does not seem to be beneficial for these factored tasks. Clemens Büchner, Patrick Ferber, Jendrik Seipp, Malte Helmert |
ICAPS | 2 |
| 2024 | Guiding GBFS through Learned Pairwise Rankings
Mingyu Hao, Felipe W. Trevizan, Sylvie Thiébaux, Patrick Ferber, Jörg Hoffmann 0001 |
IJCAI | 4 |
| 2022 | Explainable Planner Selection for Classical Planning
Patrick Ferber, Jendrik Seipp |
AAAI | 1 |
| 2022 | Learning and Exploiting Progress States in Greedy Best-First SearchabstractPrevious work introduced the concept of progress states. After expanding a progress state, a greedy best-first search (GBFS) will only expand states with lower heuristic values. Current methods can identify progress states only for a single task and only after a solution for the task has been found. We introduce a novel approach that learns a description logic formula characterizing all progress states in a classical planning domain. Using the learned formulas in a GBFS to break ties in favor of progress states often significantly reduces the search effort. Patrick Ferber, Liat Cohen, Jendrik Seipp, Thomas Keller 0001 |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2022 | Neural Network Heuristic Functions: Taking Confidence into AccountabstractNeural networks (NN) are increasingly investigated in AI Planning, and are used successfully to learn heuristic functions. NNs commonly not only predict a value, but also output a confidence in this prediction. From the perspective of heuristic search with NN heuristics, it is a natural idea to take this into account, e.g. falling back to a standard heuristic where confidence is low. We contribute an empirical study of this idea. We design search methods which prune nodes, or switch between search queues, based on the confidence of NNs. We furthermore explore the possibility of out-of-distribution (OOD) training, which tries to reduce the overconfidence of NNs on inputs different to the training distribution. In experiments on IPC benchmarks, we find that our search methods improve coverage over standard methods, and that OOD training has the desired effect in terms of prediction accuracy and confidence, though its impact on search seems marginal. Daniel Heller, Patrick Ferber, Julian Bitterwolf, Matthias Hein 0001, Jörg Hoffmann 0001 |
SOCS | 2 |
| 2020 | Online Planner Selection with Graph Neural Networks and Adaptive SchedulingabstractAutomated planning is one of the foundational areas of AI. Since no single planner can work well for all tasks and domains, portfolio-based techniques have become increasingly popular in recent years. In particular, deep learning emerges as a promising methodology for online planner selection. Owing to the recent development of structural graph representations of planning tasks, we propose a graph neural network (GNN) approach to selecting candidate planners. GNNs are advantageous over a straightforward alternative, the convolutional neural networks, in that they are invariant to node permutations and that they incorporate node labels for better inference.Additionally, for cost-optimal planning, we propose a two-stage adaptive scheduling method to further improve the likelihood that a given task is solved in time. The scheduler may switch at halftime to a different planner, conditioned on the observed performance of the first one. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of the proposed method against strong baselines, both deep learning and non-deep learning based.The code is available at https://github.com/matenure/GNN_planner. Tengfei Ma 0001, Patrick Ferber, Siyu Huo, Jie Chen 0007, Michael Katz 0001 |
AAAI | 2 |
| 2020 | Neural Network Heuristics for Classical Planning: A Study of Hyperparameter SpaceabstractNeural networks (NN) have been shown to be powerful state-value predictors in several complex games. Can similar suc- cesses be achieved in classical planning? Towards a systematic ex- ploration of that question, we contribute a study of hyperparameter space in the most canonical setup: input = state, feed-forward NN, supervised learning, generalization only over initial state. We inves tigate a broad range of hyperparameters pertaining to NN design and training. We evaluate these techniques through their use as heuristic functions in Fast Downward. The results on IPC benchmarks show that highly competitive heuristics can be learned, yielding substan tially smaller search spaces than standard techniques on some do mains. But the heuristic functions are costly to evaluate, and the range of domains where useful heuristics are learned is limited. Our study provides the basis for further research improving on current weaknesses. Patrick Ferber, Malte Helmert, Jörg Hoffmann 0001 |
ECAI | 1 |
| 2019 | Deep Learning for Cost-Optimal Planning: Task-Dependent Planner SelectionabstractAs classical planning is known to be computationally hard, no single planner is expected to work well across many planning domains. One solution to this problem is to use online portfolio planners that select a planner for a given task. These portfolios perform a classification task, a well-known and wellresearched task in the field of machine learning. The classification is usually performed using a representation of planning tasks with a collection of hand-crafted statistical features. Recent techniques in machine learning that are based on automatic extraction of features have not been employed yet due to the lack of suitable representations of planning tasks.In this work, we alleviate this barrier. We suggest representing planning tasks by images, allowing to exploit arguably one of the most commonly used and best developed techniques in deep learning. We explore some of the questions that inevitably rise when applying such a technique, and present various ways of building practically useful online portfoliobased planners. An evidence of the usefulness of our proposed technique is a planner that won the cost-optimal track of the International Planning Competition 2018. Silvan Sievers, Michael Katz 0001, Shirin Sohrabi, Horst Samulowitz, Patrick Ferber |
AAAI | 5 |