Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
David Rajaratnam
dblp:59/4677
· DBLP profile ↗
13ranked-venue papers
4as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-4919-7997ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 12 · 4 first-author · 3 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 5 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 5 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 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
6 papers |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 29% Trustworthy machine learning · 24% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 22% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Logic in computer science · 100% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › ethical AI
machine ethics |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Formalisation and Evaluation of Properties for Consequentialist Machine Ethics · IJCAI 2024 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
epistemic planning |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Representing and Reasoning with Event Models for Epistemic Planning · KR 2021 |
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking
event models |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Representing and Reasoning with Event Models for Epistemic Planning · KR 2021 |
Logic in computer science › epistemic logic
dynamic epistemic logic |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Representing and Reasoning with Event Models for Epistemic Planning · KR 2021 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
neuro-symbolic reasoning |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | A Framework for Integrating Symbolic and Sub-Symbolic Representations · IJCAI 2016 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
execution monitoring |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Execution Monitoring as Meta-Games for General Game-Playing Robots · IJCAI 2015 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › game playing
general game playing |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Execution Monitoring as Meta-Games for General Game-Playing Robots · IJCAI 2015 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change
action theories |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Forgetting in Action · KR 2014 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
belief revision |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Forgetting in Action · KR 2014 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › belief revision
forgetting |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Forgetting in Action · KR 2014 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot control |
0.1 | 1 | 2015 | Execution Monitoring as Meta-Games for General Game-Playing Robots · IJCAI 2015 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
belief change |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Inverse Resolution as Belief Change · IJCAI 2005 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › rule learning
inverse resolution |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Inverse Resolution as Belief Change · IJCAI 2005 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
meta-game · 0.2game-theoretic analysis · 0.2inverse resolution · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Formalisation and Evaluation of Properties for Consequentialist Machine Ethics
Raynaldio Limarga, Yang Song 0001, Abhaya C. Nayak, David Rajaratnam, Maurice Pagnucco |
IJCAI | 4 |
| 2021 | Epistemic Reasoning for Machine Ethics with Situation CalculusabstractWith the rapid development of autonomous machines such as selfdriving vehicles and social robots, there is increasing realisation that machine ethics is important for widespread acceptance of autonomous machines. Our objective is to encode ethical reasoning into autonomous machines following well-defined ethical principles and behavioural norms. We provide an approach to reasoning about actions that incorporates ethical considerations. It builds on Scherl and Levesque's [29, 30] approach to knowledge in the situation calculus. We show how reasoning about knowledge in a dynamic setting can be used to guide ethical and moral choices, aligned with consequentialist and deontological approaches to ethics. We apply our approach to autonomous driving and social robot scenarios, and provide an implementation framework. Maurice Pagnucco, David Rajaratnam, Raynaldio Limarga, Abhaya C. Nayak, Yang Song 0001 |
AIES | 2 |
| 2021 | Representing and Reasoning with Event Models for Epistemic PlanningabstractThe standard representation formalism for multi-agent epistemic planning has one central disadvantage: When you use event models in dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) to describe the action of one agent, the model must specify not only the actual change and the change of that agent's knowledge. Also required is the epistemic change of any agents that may be observing the first agent performing the action, plus the epistemic change for any further agents that failed to observe that anything had taken place. To overcome the gap between this complex DEL notion of events and a more commonsense notion of actions, we propose a simple high-level action description language for multi-agent epistemic planning domains with just one type of effect laws: a causes x if y. Effect x can either be a physical effect, or an observation from an independent set that is specific to individual agents. We formally prove that any DEL event model can be described in this way. We show how this language provides a framework for expressing a variety of executability and action models; such as describing actions that are both ontic and epistemic, partially observable, or nondeterministic. We further combine our representation of event models with a description language for finitary initial epistemic theories, and we show how this allows us to reason about the effects of a sequence of actions in a multi-agent epistemic domain by updating a single multi-pointed epistemic model. David Rajaratnam, Michael Thielscher |
KR | 1 |
| 2019 | Encoding Epistemic Strategies for General Game Playing
Shawn Manuel, David Rajaratnam, Michael Thielscher |
PRICAI (1) | 2 |
| 2016 | A Framework for Integrating Symbolic and Sub-Symbolic Representations
Keith Clark, Bernhard Hengst, Maurice Pagnucco, David Rajaratnam, Peter Robinson 0007, Claude Sammut, Michael Thielscher |
IJCAI | 4 |
| 2015 | Execution Monitoring as Meta-Games for General Game-Playing Robots
David Rajaratnam, Michael Thielscher |
IJCAI | 1 |
| 2015 | Integrating ASP into ROS for Reasoning in Robots
Benjamin Andres, David Rajaratnam, Orkunt Sabuncu, Torsten Schaub |
LPNMR | 2 |
| 2014 | A Systematic Solution to the (De-)Composition Problem in General Game PlayingabstractGeneral game players can drastically reduce the cost of search if they are able to solve smaller subproblems individually and synthesise the resulting solutions. To provide a systematic solution to this (de-)composition problem, we start off with generalising the standard decomposition problem in planning by allowing the composition of individual solutions to be further constrained by domain-dependent requirements of the global planning problem. We solve this generalised problem based on a systematic analysis of composition operators for transition systems, and we demonstrate how this solution can be further generalised to general game playing. Timothy Joseph Cerexhe, David Rajaratnam, Abdallah Saffidine, Michael Thielscher |
ECAI | 2 |
| 2014 | Forgetting in Action
David Rajaratnam, Hector J. Levesque, Maurice Pagnucco, Michael Thielscher |
KR | 1 |
| 2013 | Implementing Belief Change in the Situation Calculus and an Application
Maurice Pagnucco, David Rajaratnam, Hannes Strass, Michael Thielscher |
LPNMR | 2 |
| 2009 | A Novel Architecture for Situation Awareness Systems
Franz Baader, Andreas Bauer 0002, Peter Baumgartner 0001, Anne Cregan, Alfredo Gabaldon, Krystian Ji, David Rajaratnam, Rolf Schwitter |
TABLEAUX | 8 |
| 2007 | Prime Implicates for Approximate Reasoning
David Rajaratnam, Maurice Pagnucco |
KSEM | 1 |
| 2005 | Inverse Resolution as Belief Change
Maurice Pagnucco, David Rajaratnam |
IJCAI | 2 |