Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matteo Mancanelli
dblp:358/9184
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
0as first author
4since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0004-9547-7115ORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 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
2 papers |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 44% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 22% Multi-agent systems · 12% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Logic in computer science · 100% |
Topics — the 11 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 |
1.9 | 2 | 2026 | Strategic Reasoning over Golog Programs in the Nondeterministic Situation Calculus · AAAI 2026 Situation Calculus Temporally Lifted Abstractions for Generalized Planning · AAAI 2025 |
Robotics › Autonomous driving
adversarial environments |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Strategic Reasoning over Golog Programs in the Nondeterministic Situation Calculus · AAAI 2026 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change › reasoning about actions
golog |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Strategic Reasoning over Golog Programs in the Nondeterministic Situation Calculus · AAAI 2026 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
nondeterministic planning |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Strategic Reasoning over Golog Programs in the Nondeterministic Situation Calculus · AAAI 2026 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › game solving
strategy synthesis |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Strategic Reasoning over Golog Programs in the Nondeterministic Situation Calculus · AAAI 2026 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
generalized planning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Situation Calculus Temporally Lifted Abstractions for Generalized Planning · AAAI 2025 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change › reasoning about actions
situation calculus |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Situation Calculus Temporally Lifted Abstractions for Generalized Planning · AAAI 2025 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › hierarchical reinforcement learning
temporal abstraction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Situation Calculus Temporally Lifted Abstractions for Generalized Planning · AAAI 2025 |
Logic in computer science › knowledge representation and reasoning
situation calculus |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Strategic Reasoning over Golog Programs in the Nondeterministic Situation Calculus · AAAI 2026 |
Logic in computer science › temporal logic › linear temporal logic
linear temporal logic on finite traces |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Situation Calculus Temporally Lifted Abstractions for Generalized Planning · AAAI 2025 |
Logic in computer science
temporal logic |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Situation Calculus Temporally Lifted Abstractions for Generalized Planning · AAAI 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
symbolic program graph · 2.0cross product construction · 2.0abstraction refinement · 1.7LTL synthesis · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Strategic Reasoning over Golog Programs in the Nondeterministic Situation CalculusabstractWe investigate the problem of synthesizing strategies that guarantee the successful execution of a high-level nondeterministic agent program in Golog within a nondeterministic first-order basic action theory, considering the environment as adversarial. Our approach constructs a symbolic program graph that captures the control flow independently of the domain, enabling strategy synthesis through the cross product of the program graph with the domain model. We formally relate graph-based transitions to standard Golog semantics and provide a synthesis procedure that is sound though incomplete (in general, the problem is undecidable, given that we have a first-order representation of the state). We also extend the framework to handle the case where the environment's possible behaviors are specified by a Golog program. Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance, Matteo Mancanelli |
AAAI | 3 |
| 2026 | Reactive Synthesis for Golog Specifications in the Propositional Situation CalculusabstractGolog programs over Situation Calculus action theories were introduced as a specification of desired agent behavior, very much like temporally extended goals in planning, but with a focus on procedural aspects typical of programs. In the words of the original paper: "Golog allows the programmer to strike a compromise between the often computationally infeasible classical planning task, in which a plan must be deduced entirely from scratch, and detailed programming, in which every little step must be specified." In this paper, we study temporal synthesis with Golog programs as specifications over nondeterministic propositional action theories. We show that Golog has the same expressive power as linear dynamic logics on finite traces (LDLf), namely that of regular languages or monadic second-order logic (MSO) over finite traces, while exhibiting a markedly lower synthesis complexity: synthesis can be performed by constructing a polynomial-size program graph and taking its cross-product with the domain, whereas LDLf synthesis requires building a deterministic automaton of worst-case doubly exponential size. This advantage is confirmed experimentally. Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance, Matteo Mancanelli, Gianmarco Parretti |
KR | 3 |
| 2026 | Neuro-Symbolic Predictive Process MonitoringabstractThis paper addresses the problem of suffix prediction in Business Process Management (BPM) by proposing a Neuro-Symbolic Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM) approach that integrates data-driven learning with temporal logic-based prior knowledge. While recent approaches leverage deep learning models for suffix prediction, they often fail to satisfy even basic logical constraints due to the absence of explicit integration of domain knowledge during training. We propose a novel method to incorporate Linear Temporal Logic over finite traces (LTLf) into the training process of autoregressive sequence predictors. Our approach introduces a differentiable logical loss function, defined using a soft approximation of LTLf semantics and the Gumbel-Softmax trick, which can be combined with standard predictive losses. This ensures the model learns to generate suffixes that are both accurate and logically consistent. Experimental evaluation on three real-world datasets shows that our method improves suffix prediction accuracy and compliance with temporal constraints. We also introduce two variants of the logic loss (local and global) and demonstrate their effectiveness under noisy and realistic settings. While developed in the context of BPM, our framework is applicable to any symbolic sequence generation task and contributes toward advancing Neuro-Symbolic AI. Axel Mezini, Elena Umili, Ivan Donadello, Fabrizio Maria Maggi, Matteo Mancanelli, Fabio Patrizi |
Inf. Syst. | 5 |
| 2025 | Situation Calculus Temporally Lifted Abstractions for Generalized PlanningabstractWe present a new formal framework for generalized planning (GP) based on the situation calculus extended with LTL constraints. The GP problem is specified by a first-order basic action theory whose models are the problem instances. This low-level theory is then abstracted into a high-level propositional nondeterministic basic action theory with a single model. A refinement mapping relates the two theories. LTL formulas are used to specify the temporally extended goals as well as assumed trace constraints. If all LTL trace constraints hold at the low level and the high-level model can simulate all the low-level models with respect to the mapping, we say that we have a temporally lifted abstraction. We prove that if we have such an abstraction and the agent has a strategy to achieve a LTL goal under some trace constraints at the abstract level, then there exists a refinement of the strategy to achieve the refinement of the goal at the concrete level. We use LTL synthesis to generate the strategy at the abstract level. We illustrate our approach by synthesizing a program that solves a data structure manipulation problem. Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance, Matteo Mancanelli |
AAAI | 3 |