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

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

On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9299-6Animals, including humans, are usually judged on what they could become, rather than what they are. Many physical and cognitive abilities in the ‘animal kingdom’ are only acquired (to a given degree) when the subject reaches a certain stage of development, which can be accelerated or spoilt depending on how the environment, training or education is. The term ‘potential ability’ usually refers to how quick and likely the process of attaining the ability is. In principle, things should not be different for the ‘machine kingdom’. While machines can be characterised by a set of cognitive abilities, and measuring them is already a big challenge, known as ‘universal psychometrics’, a more informative, and yet more challenging, goal would be to also determine the potential cognitive abilities of a machine. In this paper we investigate the notion of potential cognitive ability for machines, focussing especially on universality and intelligence. We consider several machine characterisations (non-interactive and interactive) and give definitions for each case, considering permanent and temporal potentials. From these definitions, we analyse the relation between some potential abilities, we bring out the dependency on the environment distribution and we suggest some ideas about how potential abilities can be measured. Finally, we also analyse the potential of environments at different levels and briefly discuss whether machines should be designed to be intelligent or potentially intelligent.We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which have helped to significantly improve this paper. This work was supported by the MEC-MINECO projects CONSOLIDER-INGENIO CSD2007-00022 and TIN 2010-21062-C02-02, GVA project PROMETEO/2008/051, the COST - European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research IC0801 AT. Finally, we thank three pioneers ahead of their time(s). We thank Ray Solomonoff (1926-2009) and Chris Wallace (1933-2004) for all that they taught us, directly and indirectly. And, in his centenary year, we thank Alan Turing (1912-1954), with whom it perhaps all began.Hernández-Orallo, J.; Dowe, DL. (2013). On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Minds and Machines. 23(2):179-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9299-6S179210232Amari, S., Fujita, N., Shinomoto, S. (1992). Four types of learning curves. Neural Computation 4(4), 605–618.Aristotle (Translation, Introduction, and Commentary by Ross, W.D.) (1924). Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Barmpalias, G. & Dowe, D. L. (2012). Universality probability of a prefix-free machine. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society A [Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences] (Phil Trans A), Theme Issue ‘The foundations of computation, physics and mentality: The Turing legacy’ compiled and edited by Barry Cooper and Samson Abramsky, 370, pp 3488–3511.Chaitin, G. J. (1966). On the length of programs for computing finite sequences. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13, 547–569.Chaitin, G. J. (1975). A theory of program size formally identical to information theory. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 22(3), 329–340.Dowe, D. L. (2008, September). Foreword re C. S. Wallace. Computer Journal, 51(5):523–560, Christopher Stewart WALLACE (1933–2004) memorial special issue.Dowe, D. L. (2011). MML, hybrid Bayesian network graphical models, statistical consistency, invariance and uniqueness. In: P. S. Bandyopadhyay, M. R. Forster (Eds), Handbook of the philosophy of science—Volume 7: Philosophy of statistics (pp. 901–982). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1997a). A computational extension to the turing test. Technical report #97/322, Dept Computer Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 9 pp, http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/publications/1997/tr-cs97-322-abs.html .Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1997b, September). A computational extension to the Turing Test. in Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Australasian Cognitive Science Society, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 9 pp.Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1998, February). A non-behavioural, computational extension to the Turing Test. In: International conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applications (ICCIMA’98), Gippsland, Australia, pp 101–106.Dowe, D. L., Hernández-Orallo, J. (2012). IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence, 40(2), 77–81.Gallistel, C. R., Fairhurst, S., & Balsam, P. (2004). The learning curve: Implications of a quantitative analysis. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(36), 13124–13131.Gardner, M. (1970). Mathematical games: The fantastic combinations of John Conway’s new solitaire game “life”. Scientific American, 223(4), 120–123.Goertzel, B. & Bugaj, S. V. (2009). AGI preschool: A framework for evaluating early-stage human-like AGIs. In Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial general intelligence (AGI-09), pp 31–36.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000a). Beyond the Turing Test. Journal of Logic, Language & Information, 9(4), 447–466.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000b). On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In A. Meystel (Ed), Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop (pp 1–8). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2010). On evaluating agent performance in a fixed period of time. In M. Hutter et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd international conference on artificial general intelligence (pp. 25–30). New York: Atlantis Press.Hernández-Orallo, J., & Dowe, D. L. (2010). Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1508–1539.Hernández-Orallo, J. & Dowe, D. L. (2011, April). Mammals, machines and mind games. Who’s the smartest?. The conversation, http://theconversation.edu.au/mammals-machines-and-mind-games-whos-the-smartest-566 .Hernández-Orallo J., Dowe D. L., España-Cubillo S., Hernández-Lloreda M. V., & Insa-Cabrera J. (2011). On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In: J. Schmidhuber, K. R. Thórisson, & M. Looks (Eds.), Artificial general intelligence 2011, volume 6830, LNAI series, pp. 82–91. New York: Springer.Hernández-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Lloreda, M. V. (2012a, March). Measuring cognitive abilities of machines, humans and non-human animals in a unified way: towards universal psychometrics. Technical report 2012/267, Faculty of Information Technology, Clayton School of I.T., Monash University, Australia.Hernández-Orallo, J., Insa, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hibbard, B. (2012b). Turing tests with Turing machines. In A. Voronkov (Ed.), The Alan Turing centenary conference, Turing-100, Manchester, volume 10 of EPiC Series, pp 140–156.Hernández-Orallo, J., & Minaya-Collado, N. (1998). A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of Kolmogorov complexity. In Proceedings of the international symposium of engineering of intelligent systems (EIS’98) (pp 146–163). Switzerland: ICSC Press.Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317(5843), 1360–1366.Herrmann, E., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Call, J., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2010). The structure of individual differences in the cognitive abilities of children and chimpanzees. Psychological Science, 21(1), 102–110.Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of educational psychology, 57(5), 253.Hutter, M. (2005). Universal artificial intelligence: Sequential decisions based on algorithmic probability. New York: Springer.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., España, S., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011a). Comparing humans and AI agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pp 122–132. Springer, New York.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011b). Evaluating a reinforcement learning algorithm with a general intelligence test. In CAEPIA—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 7023, pages 1–11. Springer, New York.Kearns, M. & Singh, S. (2002). Near-optimal reinforcement learning in polynomial time. Machine Learning, 49(2), 209–232.Kolmogorov, A. N. (1965). Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems of Information Transmission, 1, 4–7.Legg, S. (2008, June). Machine super intelligence. Department of Informatics, University of Lugano.Legg, S. & Hutter, M. (2007). Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines, 17(4), 391–444.Legg, S., & Veness, J. (2012). An approximation of the universal intelligence measure. In Proceedings of Solomonoff 85th memorial conference. New York: Springer.Levin, L. A. (1973). Universal sequential search problems. Problems of Information Transmission, 9(3), 265–266.Li, M., Vitányi, P. (2008). An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (3rd ed). New York: Springer.Little, V. L., & Bailey, K. G. (1972). Potential intelligence or intelligence test potential? A question of empirical validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(1), 168.Mahoney, M. V. (1999). Text compression as a test for artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI (pp. 486–502). New Jersey: Wiley.Mahrer, A. R. (1958). Potential intelligence: A learning theory approach to description and clinical implication. The Journal of General Psychology, 59(1), 59–71.Oppy, G., & Dowe, D. L. (2011). The Turing Test. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/ .Orseau, L. & Ring, M. (2011). Self-modification and mortality in artificial agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pages 1–10. Springer, New York.Ring, M. & Orseau, L. (2011). Delusion, survival, and intelligent agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pp. 11–20. Springer, New York.Schaeffer, J., Burch, N., Bjornsson, Y., Kishimoto, A., Muller, M., Lake, R., et al. (2007). Checkers is solved. Science, 317(5844), 1518.Solomonoff, R. J. (1962). Training sequences for mechanized induction. In M. Yovits, G. Jacobi, & G. Goldsteins (Eds.), Self-Organizing Systems, 7, 425–434.Solomonoff, R. J. (1964). A formal theory of inductive inference. Information and Control, 7(1–22), 224–254.Solomonoff, R. J. (1967). Inductive inference research: Status, Spring 1967. RTB 154, Rockford Research, Inc., 140 1/2 Mt. Auburn St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138, July 1967.Solomonoff, R. J. (1978). Complexity-based induction systems: comparisons and convergence theorems. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 24(4), 422–432.Solomonoff, R. J. (1984). Perfect training sequences and the costs of corruption—A progress report on induction inference research. Oxbridge research.Solomonoff, R. J. (1985). The time scale of artificial intelligence: Reflections on social effects. Human Systems Management, 5, 149–153.Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge: The MIT press.Thorp, T. R., & Mahrer, A. R. (1959). Predicting potential intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15(3), 286–288.Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.Veness, J., Ng, K. S., Hutter, M., & Silver, D. (2011). A Monte Carlo AIXI approximation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, JAIR, 40, 95–142.Wallace, C. S. (2005). Statistical and inductive inference by minimum message length. New York: Springer.Wallace, C. S., & Boulton, D. M. (1968). An information measure for classification. Computer Journal, 11, 185–194.Wallace, C. S., & Dowe, D. L. (1999a). Minimum message length and Kolmogorov complexity. Computer Journal 42(4), 270–283.Wallace, C. S., & Dowe, D. L. (1999b). Refinements of MDL and MML coding. Computer Journal, 42(4), 330–337.Woergoetter, F., & Porr, B. (2008). Reinforcement learning. Scholarpedia, 3(3), 1448.Zvonkin, A. K., & Levin, L. A. (1970). The complexity of finite objects and the development of the concepts of information and randomness by means of the theory of algorithms. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 25, 83–124

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

RankME: Reliable Human Ratings for Natural Language Generation

Human evaluation for natural language generation (NLG) often suffers from inconsistent user ratings. While previous research tends to attribute this problem to individual user preferences, we show that the quality of human judgements can also be improved by experimental design. We present a novel rank-based magnitude estimation method (RankME), which combines the use of continuous scales and relative assessments. We show that RankME significantly improves the reliability and consistency of human ratings compared to traditional evaluation methods. In addition, we show that it is possible to evaluate NLG systems according to multiple, distinct criteria, which is important for error analysis. Finally, we demonstrate that RankME, in combination with Bayesian estimation of system quality, is a cost-effective alternative for ranking multiple NLG systems.Comment: Accepted to NAACL 2018 (The 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics