Question asking to inform procedure learning

AAAI Workshop - Technical Report

Volumn WS-08-07, Issue , 2008, Pages 68-75

  Gervasio, Melinda ^a   Myers, Karen ^a  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LEARNING BY DEMONSTRATION; METAREASONING; POTENTIAL UTILITY; QUESTION-ASKING; TECHNICAL CHALLENGES; TRAINING DATA;

DEMONSTRATIONS;

EID: 66149160373     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Allen, J., Chambers, N., Ferguson, G., Galescu, L., Jung, H., Swift, M., and Taysom, W. 2007. PLOW: A collaborative task learning agent. Proc. of the 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vancouver, Canada.
2. Boutilier, C. 2002. A POMDP formulation of preference elicitation problems. Proc. of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Edmonton, Canada.
3. Bresina, J., Jonsson, A., Morris, P. and Rajan, K. 2005. Activity planning for the Mars exploration rovers. Proc. of the 15th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. Monterey, CA
4. Burstein, M., Brinn, M., Cox, M., Hussain, M., Laddaga, R., McDermott, D., McDonald, D., and Tomlinson, R. 2007. An architecture and language for the integrated learning of demonstrations. Proc. of the AAAI Workshop on Acquiring Planning Knowledge through Demonstration, AAAI Technical Report WS-07-02.
5. Cohen, R., Cheng, M., and Fleming, M. W. 2005. Why bother about bother: Is it worth it to ask the user? Proc. of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Mixed-Initiative Problem-Solving Assistants.
6. Cypher, A. (ed.). 1993. Watch What I Do: Programming by Demonstration. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
7. Freund, Y., Seung, H., Shamir, E., and Tishby, N. 1997. Selective sampling using the Query by Committee algorithm. Machine Learning, 28, 133-168.
8. Garland, A., Ryall, K., and Rich, C. 2001. Learning hierarchical task models by defining and refining examples. Proc. of the First International Conference on Knowledge Capture.
9. Gruber, T. and Russell, D. 1995. Generative design rationale: Beyond the record and replay paradigm. In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, T. Moran and J. H. Carroll (eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
10. Kellerer, H., Pferschy, U., and Pisinger, D. 2005. Knapsack Problems. Springer Verlag.
11. th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
12. Lewis, D. and Gale, W. 1994. A sequential algorithm for training text classifiers. Proc. of the 17th Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval.
13. Lieberman, H. (ed.). 2001. Your Wish is My Command: Programming by Example. Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, CA.
14. McGuinness, D.L., Glass, A., Wolverton, M., and Pinheiro da Silva, P. 2007. A categorization of explanation questions for task processing systems. Proc. of the AAAI Workshop on Explanation-aware Computing. Vancouver, Canada.
15. th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
16. Myers, K. L., Jarvis, P., Tyson, W. M., and Wolverton, M. J. 2003. A Mixed-initiative framework for robust plan sketching. Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. Trento, Italy.
17. Ram, A. and Hunter, L. 1992. The use of explicit goals for knowledge to guide inference and learning. Journal of Applied Intelligence, 2(1):47-73.
18. Scerri, P., Pynadath, D., and Tambe, M. 2002. Towards adjustable autonomy for the real world. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 17: 171-228.
19. th Annual ACM Conference on Computational Learning Theory.
20. Tecuci, G., Boicu, M., and Cox, M. T (eds.) 2007. AI Magazine, Special Issue on Mixed-initiative Assistants, Volume 28(2).