We describe a method for explaining the differences between the quality of plans produced for similar planning problems. The method exploits a process of abstracting away details of the planning problems until the difference in solution quality they support has been minimised. We give a general definition of a valid abstraction of a planning problem. We then give the details of the implementation of a number of useful abstractions. Finally, we present a breadth-first search algorithm for finding suitable abstractions for explanations; and detail the results of an evaluation of the approach.

Existing approaches for generating human-aware agent behaviors have considered different measures of interpretability in isolation. Further, these measures have been studied under differing assumptions, thus precluding the possibility of designing a single framework that captures these measures under the same assumptions. In this paper, we present a unifying Bayesian framework that models a human observer's evolving beliefs about an agent and thereby define the problem of Generalized Human-Aware Planning. We will show that the definitions of interpretability measures like explicability, legibility and predictability from the prior literature fall out as special cases of our general framework. Through this framework, we also bring a previously ignored fact to light that the human-robot interactions are in effect open-world problems, particularly as a result of modeling the human's beliefs over the agent. Since the human may not only hold beliefs unknown to the agent but may also form new hypotheses about the agent when presented with novel or unexpected behaviors.

In automated planning, the need for explanations arises when there is a mismatch between a proposed plan and the user’s expectation. We frame Explainable AI Planning as an iterative plan exploration process, in which the user asks a succession of contrastive questions that lead to the generation and solution of hypothetical planning problems that are restrictions of the original problem. The object of the exploration is for the user to understand the constraints that govern the original plan and, ultimately, to arrive at a satisfactory plan. We present the results of a user study that demonstrates that when users ask questions about plans, those questions are usually contrastive, i.e. “why A rather than B?”. We use the data from this study to construct a taxonomy of user questions that often arise during plan exploration. Our approach to iterative plan exploration is a process of successive model restriction. Each contrastive user question imposes a set of constraints on the planning problem, leading to the construction of a new hypothetical planning problem as a restriction of the original. Solving this restricted problem results in a plan that can be compared with the original plan, admitting a contrastive explanation. We formally define model-based compilations in PDDL2.1 for each type of constraint derived from a contrastive user question in the taxonomy, and empirically evaluate the compilations in terms of computational complexity. The compilations were implemented as part of an explanation framework supporting iterative model restriction. We demonstrate its benefits in a second user study.

Designing robots capable of generating interpretable behavior is essential for effective human-robot collaboration. This requires robots to be able to generate behavior that aligns with human expectations but exhibiting such behavior in arbitrary environments could be quite expensive for robots, and in some cases, the robot may not even be able to exhibit expected behavior. However, in structured environments (like warehouses, restaurants, etc.), it may be possible to design the environment so as to boost the interpretability of a robot's behavior or to shape the human's expectations of the robot's behavior. In this paper, we investigate the opportunities and limitations of environment design as a tool to promote a particular type of interpretable behavior - known in the literature as explicable behavior. We formulate a novel environment design framework that considers design over multiple tasks and over a time horizon. In addition, we explore the longitudinal effect of explicable behavior and the trade-off that arises between the cost of design and the cost of generating explicable behavior over an extended time horizon.

Explainable planning is widely accepted as a prerequisite for autonomous agents to successfully work with humans. While there has been a lot of research on generating explanations of solutions to planning problems, explaining the absence of solutions remains an open and under-studied problem, even though such situations can be the hardest to understand or debug. In this paper, we show that hierarchical abstractions can be used to efficiently generate reasons for unsolvability of planning problems. In contrast to related work on computing certificates of unsolvability, we show that these methods can generate compact, human-understandable reasons for unsolvability. Empirical analysis and user studies show the validity of our methods as well as their computational efficacy on a number of benchmark planning domains.

Abstract We present a technique for automatically extracting mutual exclusion invariants from temporal planning instances. It first identifies a set of invariant templates by inspecting the lifted representation of the domain and then checks these templates against properties that assure invariance. Our technique builds on other approaches to invariant synthesis presented in the literature but departs from their limited focus on instantaneous actions by addressing temporal domains. To deal with time, we formulate invariance conditions that account for the entire temporal structure of the actions and the possible concurrent interactions between them. As a result, we construct a more comprehensive technique than previous methods, which is able to find not only invariants for temporal domains but also a broader set of invariants for sequential domains. Our experimental results provide evidence that our domain analysis is effective at identifying a more extensive set of invariants, which results in the generation of fewer multi-valued state variables. We show that, in turn, this reduction in the number of variables reflects positively on the performance of the temporal planners that use a variable/value representation.

Reachability analysis is a crucial part of the heuristic computation for many state of the art classical and temporal planners. In this paper, we study the difficulty that arises in assessing the reachability of actions in planning problems containing sets of interdependent actions, notably including problems with required concurrency as well as hierarchical planning problems. We show the limitation of state-of-the-art techniques and propose a new method suitable for both temporal and hierarchical planning problems. Our proposal is evaluated on FAPE, a constraint-based temporal planner.A long version of this paper was presented at the HSDIP workshop [1].

Recently there has been a lot of focus on human robot co-habitation issues that are often orthogonal to many aspects of human-robot teaming; e.g. on producing socially acceptable behaviors of robots and de-conflicting plans of robots and humans in shared environments. However, an interesting offshoot of these settings that has largely been overlooked is the problem of planning for serendipity - i.e. planning for stigmergic collaboration without explicit commitments on agents in co-habitation. In this paper we formalize this notion of planning for serendipity for the first time, and provide an Integer Programming based solution for this problem. Further, we illustrate the different modes of this planning technique on a typical Urban Search and Rescue scenario and show a real-life implementation of the ideas on the Nao Robot interacting with a human colleague.

Abstract Development of real planning and scheduling applications often requires the ability to handle uncertainty. Often this uncertainty is represented using probability information on the initial conditions and on the outcomes of actions. In this paper, we describe a novel probabilistic plan graph heuristic that computes information about the interaction between actions and between propositions. This information is used to find better relaxed plans and to compute their probability of success. This information guides a forward state space search for high probability, non‐branching seed plans. These plans are then used in a planning and scheduling system that handles unexpected outcomes by runtime replanning. We briefly describe the heuristic, the search process, and the results on different domains from recent international planning competitions. We discuss the results of this study and some of the issues involved in advancing this work further.

Activity planning for missions such as the Mars Exploration Rover mission presents many technical challenges, including oversubscription, consideration of time, concurrency, resources, preferences, and uncertainty. These challenges have all been addressed by the research community to varying degrees, but significant technical hurdles still remain. In addition, the integration of these capabilities into a single planning engine remains largely unaddressed. However, I argue that there is a deeper set of issues that needs to be considered -- namely the integration of planning into an iterative process that begins before the goals, objectives, and preferences are fully defined. This introduces a number of technical challenges for planning, including the ability to more naturally specify and utilize constraints on the planning process, the ability to generate multiple qualitatively different plans, and the ability to provide deep explanation of plans.

Some recent works in conditional planning have proposed reachability heuristics to improve planner scalability, but many lack a formal description of the properties of their distance estimates. To place previous work in context and extend work on heuristics for conditional planning, we provide a formal basis for distance estimates between belief states. We give a definition for the distance between belief states that relies on aggregating underlying state distance measures. We give several techniques to aggregate state distances and their associated properties. Many existing heuristics exhibit a subset of the properties, but in order to provide a standardized comparison we present several generalizations of planning graph heuristics that are used in a single planner. We compliment our belief state distance estimate framework by also investigating efficient planning graph data structures that incorporate BDDs to compute the most effective heuristics. We developed two planners to serve as test-beds for our investigation. The first, CAltAlt, is a conformant regression planner that uses A* search. The second, POND, is a conditional progression planner that uses AO* search. We show the relative effectiveness of our heuristic techniques within these planners. We also compare the performance of these planners with several state of the art approaches in conditional planning.

The addition of durative actions to PDDL2.1 sparked some controversy. Fox and Long argued that actions should be considered as instantaneous, but can start and stop processes. Ultimately, a limited notion of durative actions was incorporated into the language. I argue that this notion is still impoverished, and that the underlying philosophical position of regarding durative actions as being a shorthand for a start action, process, and stop action ignores the realities of modelling and execution for complex systems.

We present a computationally effective approach to representing and reasoning about actions with many qualifications. The approach involves treating actions as qualified not by specific facts that may or may not hold when the action is executed, but instead as potentially qualified by general constraints describing the domain being investigated. Specifically, we suggest that the result of the action be computed without considering these qualifying domain constraints, and take the action to be qualified if and only if any of the constraints is violated after the computation is complete. Our approach is presented using the framework developed in [6], where we discussed a solution to the frame and ramification problems based on the notion of possible worlds, and compared the computational requirements of that solution to the needs of more conventional ones. In the present paper, we show that the domain constraint approach to qualification, coupled with the possible worlds approach described earlier, has the remarkable property that essentially no computational resources are required to confirm that an action is unqualified. As before, we also make a quantitative comparison between the resources needed by our approach and those required by other formulations.