CaMeL: Learning Method Preconditions for HTN Planning

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, AIPS 2002

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages 131-141

  Ilghami, Okhtay ^a   Nau, Dana S ^a   Muñoz Avila, Héctor ^b   Aha, David W ^c  

^a University of Maryland ^*  (United States)

^b Lehigh University   (United States)

^c NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE;

CONDITION; DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE; FORMAL FRAMEWORK; HIERARCHICAL TASK NETWORKS; LEARN+; LEARNING METHODS; NETWORK METHODS; NETWORK PLANNING; PLANNING SYSTEMS; REAL-WORLD PROBLEM;

LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

EID: 85164964984     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. Aha, D. W., and Breslow, L. A. 1997. Refining conversational case libraries. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, 267-278. Providence, RI: Springer-Verlag.
2. Currie, K., and Tate, A. 1991. O-plan: The open planning architecture. Artificial Intelligence 52:49-86.
3. DoD. 1994. Joint tactics, techniques and procedures for noncombat evacuation operations. Technical Report Joint Report 3-07.51, Second Draft, Department of Defense.
4. Erol, K.; Hendler, J.; and Nau, D. S. 1994. HTN planning: Complexity and expressivity. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press/MIT Press.
5. Estlin, T. A., and Mooney, R. J. 1997. Learning to improve both efficiency and quality of planning. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1227-1232.
6. Estlin, T. 1998. Using Multi-Strategy Learning to Improve Planning Efficiency and Quality. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin.
7. Etzioni, O. 1993. A structural theory of explanation-based learning. Artificial Intelligence 60:93-139.
8. Fikes, R. E., and Nilsson, N. J. 1971. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2:189-208.
9. Garland, A.; Ryall, K.; and Rich, C. 2001. Learning hierarchical task models by defining and refining examples. In First International Conference on Knowledge Capture, 44-51.
10. Gil, Y. 1992. Acquiring Domain Knowledge for Planning by Experimentation. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
11. Gil, Y. 1993. Learning new planning operators by exploration and experimentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Learning Action Models.
12. Gil, Y. 1994. Learning by experimentation: Incremental refinement of incomplete planning domains. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning.
13. Gordon, D., and desJardins, M. 1995. Evaluation and selection of biases in machine learning. Machine Learning 20:5-22.
14. Hanney, K., and Keane, M. T. 1996. Learning adaptation rules from a case-base. In Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on CBR. Lausanne, Switzerland: Springer.
15. Hirsh, H.; Mishra, N.; and Pitt, L. 1997. Version spaces without boundary sets. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press/MIT Press.
16. Hirsh, H. 1994. Generalizing version spaces. Machine Learning 17:5-45.
17. Kautukam, S., and Kambhampati, S. 1994. Learning explanation-based search control rules for partial-order planning. In Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
18. Laird, J. E.; Rosenbloom, P. S.; and Newell, A. 1986. Chunking in SOAR: The anatomy of a general learning mechanism. Machine Learning 1:11-46.
19. Lamber, K. S. 1992. Noncombatant evacuation operations: Plan now or pay later. Technical report, Naval War College.
20. Langley, P. 1996. Elements of Machine Learning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
21. Leckie, C., and Zukerman, I. 1998. Inductive learning of search control rules for planning. Artificial Intelligence 101:63-98.
22. Lenz, M.; Bartsch-Sporl, B.; Burkhard, H. D.; and Wess, S., eds. 1998. Case-Based Reasoning Technology: From Foundations to Applications. Berlin: Springer.
23. Minton, S. N.; Knoblock, C. A.; Kuokka, D. R.; Gil, Y.; Joseph, R. L.; and Carbonell, J. G. 1989. PRODIGY 2.0: The manual and tutorial. Technical Report CMU-CS-89-146, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
24. Minton, S. 1988. Learning effective search control knowledge: An explanation-based approach. Technical Report TR CMU-CS-88-133, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
25. Minton, S. N. 1990. Quantitative results concerning the utility of explanation based learning. Artificial Intelligence 42:363-391.
26. Mitchell, T. M.; Mahadevan, S.; and Steinberg, L. 1985. LEAP: A learning apprentice for VLSI design. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 573-580. Los Angeles, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
27. Mitchell, T. M. 1977. Version spaces: A candidate elimination approach to rule learning. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 305-310. Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press.
28. Mitchell, T. M. 1980. The need for biases in learning generalizations. Technical Report CBM-TR-117, Rutgers University.
29. Muñoz-Avila, H.; McFarlane, D.; Aha, D. W.; Ballas, J.; Breslow, L. A.; and Nau, D. S. 1999. Using guidelines to constrain interactive case-based HTN planning. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, 288-302. Providence, RI: Springer Press.
30. Nau, D. S.; Cao, Y.; Lotem, A.; and Muñoz-Avila, H. 1999. SHOP: Simple hierarchical ordered planner. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 968-973. Stockholm: AAAI Press.
31. Sebag, M. 1995. 2nd order understandability of disjunctive version spaces. In Workshop on Machine Learning and Comprehensibility, IJCAI-95.
32. Sleeman, D.; Langley, P.; and Mitchell, T. M. 1982. Learning from solution paths: An approach to the credit assignment problem. AI Magazine 3:48-52.
33. van Lent, M., and Laird, J. 1999. Learning hierarchical performance knowledge by observation. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Machine Learning, 229-238. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
34. Veloso, M., and Carbonell, J. G. 1993. Derivational analogy in PRODIGY: Automating case acquisition, storage, and utilization. Machine Learning 10:249-278.
35. Veloso, M.; Carbonell, J. G.; Pérez, A.; Borrajo, D.; Fink, E.; and Blythe, J. 1995. Integrating planning and learning: The PRODIGY architecture. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 7:81-120.
36. Veloso, M.; Muñoz-Avila, H.; and Bergmann, R. 1996. Case-based planning: selected methods and systems. AI Communications 9:128-137.
37. Wilkins, D. E. 1990. Can AI planners solve practical problems? Computational Intelligence 6:232-246.