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

Or Wertheim

dblp:324/8106 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 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.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Programming languages and type systems · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change › reasoning about actions
action description language
0.712023
Probabilistic Programs as an Action Description Language · AAAI 2023
Programming languages and type systems
probabilistic programming
0.712023
Probabilistic Programs as an Action Description Language · AAAI 2023
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Probabilistic Programs as an Action Description Language
abstract
Actions description languages (ADLs), such as STRIPS, PDDL, and RDDL specify the input format for planning algorithms. Unfortunately, their syntax is familiar to planning experts only, and not to potential users of planning technology. Moreover, this syntax limits the ability to describe complex and large domains. We argue that programming languages (PLs), and more specifically, probabilistic programming languages (PPLs), provide a more suitable alternative. PLs are familiar to all programmers, support complex data types and rich libraries for their manipulation, and have powerful constructs, such as loops, sub-routines, and local variables with which complex, realistic models and complex objectives can be simply and naturally specified. PPLs, specifically, make it easy to specify distributions, which is essential for stochastic models. The natural objection to this proposal is that PLs are opaque and too expressive, making reasoning about them difficult. However, PPLs also come with efficient inference algorithms, which, coupled with a growing body of work on sampling-based and gradient-based planning, imply that planning and execution monitoring can be carried out efficiently in practice. In this paper, we expand on this proposal, illustrating its potential with examples.
Ronen I. Brafman, David Tolpin, Or Wertheim
AAAI3