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

Jonis Kiesbye

dblp:324/6232 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 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.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › reactive planning
universal plans
0.612022
Planning via model checking with decision-tree controllers · ICRA 2022
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.612022
Planning via model checking with decision-tree controllers · ICRA 2022
Automated reasoning and model checking › synthesis
strategy synthesis
0.612022
Planning via model checking with decision-tree controllers · ICRA 2022

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

decision tree learning · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Planning via model checking with decision-tree controllers
abstract
Planning problems can be solved not only by planners, but also by model checkers. While the former yield a plan that requires replanning as soon as any fault occurs, the latter provide a “universal” plan (a.k.a. strategy, policy, or controller) able to make decisions under all circumstances. One of the prohibitive aspects of the latter approach is stemming from this very advantage: since it is defined for all possible states of the system, it is typically so large that it does not fit into small memories of embedded devices. As another consequence of the size, its execution may be slow. In this paper, we provide a solution to this issue by linking the model checkers with decision-tree learners, resulting in decision-tree representations of the synthesized strategies. Not only are they dramatically smaller, but also more explainable and orders-of-magnitude faster to execute than plans with replanning. In addition, we describe a method for model validation and debugging via the model checker and the decision-tree learner in the loop. We illustrate the approach on our case study of a robotic arm for picking items in a real industrial setting.
Jonis Kiesbye, Kush Grover, Pranav Ashok, Jan Kretínský
ICRA1