On the automatic compilation of e-learning models to planning

[EN] This paper presents a general approach to automatically compile e-learning models to planning, allowing us to easily generate plans, in the form of learning designs, by using existing domain-independent planners. The idea is to compile, first, a course defined in a standard e-learning language into a planning domain, and, second, a file containing students learning information into a planning problem. We provide a common compilation and extend it to three particular approaches that cover a full spectrum of planning paradigms, which increases the possibilities of using current planners: (i) hierarchical, (ii) including PDDL (Planning Domain Definition Language) actions with conditional effects and (iii) including PDDL durative actions. The learning designs are automatically generated from the plans and can be uploaded, and subsequently executed, by learning management platforms. We also provide an extensive analysis of the e-learning metadata specification required for planning, and the pros and cons on the knowledge engineering procedures used in each of the three compilations. Finally, we include some qualitative and quantitative experimentation of the compilations in several domain-independent planners to measure its scalability and applicability.This work has been supported by the Spanish MICINN under projects TIN2008-06701-C03 and Consolider Ingenio 2010 CSD2007-00022, by the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology and the regional projects CCG08-UC3M/TIC-4141 and Prometeo GVA 2008/051.Garrido Tejero, A.; Fernandez, S.; Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E.; Morales, L.; Borrajo, D.; Castillo, L. (2013). On the automatic compilation of e-learning models to planning. Knowledge Engineering Review. 28(2):121-136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888912000380S121136282Garrido A. , Onaindía E. 2010. On the application of planning and scheduling techniques to E-learning. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Industrial, Engineering & Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems (IEA-AIE 2010)—Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6096, 244–253. Springer.Ullrich C 2008. Pedagogically founded courseware generation for web-based learning, No. 5260, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5260, Springer.Sicilia M.A. , Sánchez-Alonso S. , García-Barriocanal E. 2006. On supporting the process of learning design through planners. CEUR Workshop Proceedings: Virtual Campus 2006 Post-Proceedings. Barcelona, Spain, 186(1), 81–89.IMSLD 2003. IMS Learning Design Specification. Version 1.0 (February, 2003). Retrieved December, 2012, from http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign.Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) 2004. Retrieved December, 2012, from http://scorm.com.Garrido A. , Onaindia E. , Morales L. , Castillo L. , Fernandez S. , Borrajo D. 2009. Modeling E-learning activities in automated planning. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Competition on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (ICKEPS-2009), Thessaloniki, Greece, 18–27.Essalmi, F., Ayed, L. J. B., Jemni, M., Kinshuk, & Graf, S. (2010). A fully personalization strategy of E-learning scenarios. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 581-591. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.12.010Camacho D. , R-Moreno M.D. , Obieta U. 2007. CAMOU: a simple integrated e-learning and planning techniques tool. In 4th International Workshop on Constraints and Language Processing, Roskilde University, Denmark, 1–11.Fox, M., & Long, D. (2003). PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 20, 61-124. doi:10.1613/jair.1129KONTOPOULOS, E., VRAKAS, D., KOKKORAS, F., BASSILIADES, N., & VLAHAVAS, I. (2008). An ontology-based planning system for e-course generation. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(1-2), 398-406. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.07.034Fuentetaja R. , Borrajo D. , Linares López C. 2009. A look-ahead B&B search for cost-based planning. In Proceedings of CAEPIA'09, Murcia, Spain, 105–114.Limongelli C. , Sciarrone F. , Vaste G. 2008. LS-plan: an effective combination of dynamic courseware generation and learning styles in web-based education. In Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems, 5th International Conference, AH 2008, Nejdl, W., Kay, J., Pu, P. & Herder, E. (eds.)., 133–142. Springer.Castillo L. , Fdez.-Olivares J. , García-Perez O. Palao F. 2006. Efficiently handling temporal knowledge in an HTN planner. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2006), Borrajo, D. & McCluskey, L. (eds.). AAAI, 63–72.Castillo, L., Morales, L., González-Ferrer, A., Fdez-Olivares, J., Borrajo, D., & Onaindía, E. (2009). Automatic generation of temporal planning domains for e-learning problems. Journal of Scheduling, 13(4), 347-362. doi:10.1007/s10951-009-0140-xUllrich, C., & Melis, E. (2009). Pedagogically founded courseware generation based on HTN-planning. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 9319-9332. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.12.043Boticario J. , Santos O. 2007. A dynamic assistance approach to support the development and modelling of adaptive learning scenarion based on educational standards. In Proceedings of Workshop on Authoring of Adaptive and Adaptable Hypermedia, International Conference on User Modelling, Corfu, Greece, 1–8.IMSMD 2003. IMS Learning Resource Meta-data Specification. Version 1.3 (August, 2006). Retrieved December, 2012, from http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata.Mohan P. , Greer J. , McCalla G. 2003. Instructional planning with learning objects. In IJCAI-03 Workshop Knowledge Representation and Automated Reasoning for E-Learning Systems, Acapulco, Mexico, 52–58.Alonso C. , Honey P. 2002. Honey-alonso Learning Style Theoretical Basis (in Spanish). Retrieved December 2012, from http://www.estilosdeaprendizaje.es/menuprinc2.htm

ASAP: An Automatic Algorithm Selection Approach for Planning

Despite the advances made in the last decade in automated planning, no planner out- performs all the others in every known benchmark domain. This observation motivates the idea of selecting different planning algorithms for different domains. Moreover, the planners’ performances are affected by the structure of the search space, which depends on the encoding of the considered domain. In many domains, the performance of a plan- ner can be improved by exploiting additional knowledge, for instance, in the form of macro-operators or entanglements. In this paper we propose ASAP, an automatic Algorithm Selection Approach for Planning that: (i) for a given domain initially learns additional knowledge, in the form of macro-operators and entanglements, which is used for creating different encodings of the given planning domain and problems, and (ii) explores the 2 dimensional space of available algorithms, defined as encodings–planners couples, and then (iii) selects the most promising algorithm for optimising either the runtimes or the quality of the solution plans

An Automatic Algorithm Selection Approach for Planning

Despite the advances made in the last decade in automated planning, no planner outperforms all the others in every known benchmark domain. This observation motivates the idea of selecting different planning algorithms for different domains. Moreover, the planners' performances are affected by the structure of the search space, which depends on the encoding of the considered domain. In many domains, the performance of a planner can be improved by exploiting additional knowledge, extracted in the form of macro-operators or entanglements. In this paper we propose ASAP, an automatic Algorithm Selection Approach for Planning that: (i) for a given domain initially learns additional knowledge, in the form of macro-operators and entanglements, which is used for creating different encodings of the given planning domain and problems, and (ii) explores the 2 dimensional space of available algorithms, defined as encodings--planners couples, and then (iii) selects the most promising algorithm for optimising either the runtimes or the quality of the solution plans

Portfolio-based Planning: State of the Art, Common Practice and Open Challenges

In recent years the field of automated planning has significantly advanced and several powerful domain-independent planners have been developed. However, none of these systems clearly outperforms all the others in every known benchmark domain. This observation motivated the idea of configuring and exploiting a portfolio of planners to perform better than any individual planner: some recent planning systems based on this idea achieved significantly good results in experimental analysis and International Planning Competitions. Such results let us suppose that future challenges of the Automated Planning community will converge on designing different approaches for combining existing planning algorithms. This paper reviews existing techniques and provides an exhaustive guide to portfolio-based planning. In addition, the paper outlines open issues of existing approaches and highlights possible future evolution of these techniques

The 2014 International Planning Competition: Progress and Trends

We review the 2014 International Planning Competition (IPC-2014), the eighth in a series of competitions starting in 1998. IPC-2014 was held in three separate parts to assess state-of-the-art in three prominent areas of planning research: the deterministic (classical) part (IPCD), the learning part (IPCL), and the probabilistic part (IPPC). Each part evaluated planning systems in ways that pushed the edge of existing planner performance by introducing new challenges, novel tasks, or both. The competition surpassed again the number of competitors than its predecessor, highlighting the competition’s central role in shaping the landscape of ongoing developments in evaluating planning systems