Integrating planning and reactive control

Artificial intelligence research on planning is concerned with designing control systems that choose actions by manipulating explicit descriptions of the world state, the goal to be achieved, and the effects of elementary operations available to the system. Because planning shifts much of the burden of reasoning to the machine, it holds great appeal as a high-level programming method. Experience shows, however, that it cannot be used indiscriminately because even moderately rich languages for describing goals, states, and the elementary operators lead to computational inefficiencies that render the approach unsuitable for realistic applications. This inadequacy has spawned a recent wave of research on reactive control or situated activity in which control systems are modeled as reacting directly to the current situation rather than as reasoning about the future effects of alternative action sequences. While this research has confronted the issue of run-time tractability head on, in many cases it has done so by sacrificing the advantages of declarative planning techniques. Ways in which the two approaches can be unified are discussed. The authors begin by modeling reactive control systems as state machines that map a stream of sensory inputs to a stream of control outputs. These machines can be decomposed into two continuously active subsystems: the planner and the execution module. The planner computes a plan, which can be seen as a set of bits that control the behavior of the execution module. An important element of this work is the formulation of a precise semantic interpretation for the inputs and outputs of the planning system. They show that the distinction between planned and reactive behavior is largely in the eye of the beholder: systems that seem to compute explicit plans can be redescribed in situation-action terms and vice versa. They also discuss practical programming techniques that allow the advantages of declarative programming and guaranteed reactive response to be achieved simultaneously

Intelligent Agent Architectures: Reactive Planning Testbed

An Integrated Agent Architecture (IAA) is a framework or paradigm for constructing intelligent agents. Intelligent agents are collections of sensors, computers, and effectors that interact with their environments in real time in goal-directed ways. Because of the complexity involved in designing intelligent agents, it has been found useful to approach the construction of agents with some organizing principle, theory, or paradigm that gives shape to the agent's components and structures their relationships. Given the wide variety of approaches being taken in the field, the question naturally arises: Is there a way to compare and evaluate these approaches? The purpose of the present work is to develop common benchmark tasks and evaluation metrics to which intelligent agents, including complex robotic agents, constructed using various architectural approaches can be subjected

Collected notes from the Benchmarks and Metrics Workshop

In recent years there has been a proliferation of proposals in the artificial intelligence (AI) literature for integrated agent architectures. Each architecture offers an approach to the general problem of constructing an integrated agent. Unfortunately, the ways in which one architecture might be considered better than another are not always clear. There has been a growing realization that many of the positive and negative aspects of an architecture become apparent only when experimental evaluation is performed and that to progress as a discipline, we must develop rigorous experimental methods. In addition to the intrinsic intellectual interest of experimentation, rigorous performance evaluation of systems is also a crucial practical concern to our research sponsors. DARPA, NASA, and AFOSR (among others) are actively searching for better ways of experimentally evaluating alternative approaches to building intelligent agents. One tool for experimental evaluation involves testing systems on benchmark tasks in order to assess their relative performance. As part of a joint DARPA and NASA funded project, NASA-Ames and Teleos Research are carrying out a research effort to establish a set of benchmark tasks and evaluation metrics by which the performance of agent architectures may be determined. As part of this project, we held a workshop on Benchmarks and Metrics at the NASA Ames Research Center on June 25, 1990. The objective of the workshop was to foster early discussion on this important topic. We did not achieve a consensus, nor did we expect to. Collected here is some of the information that was exchanged at the workshop. Given here is an outline of the workshop, a list of the participants, notes taken on the white-board during open discussions, position papers/notes from some participants, and copies of slides used in the presentations

Coordination technology for active support networks: context, needfinding, and design

Coordination is a key problem for addressing goal-action gaps in many human endeavors. We define interpersonal coordination as a type of communicative action characterized by low interpersonal belief and goal conflict. Such situations are particularly well described as having collectively "intelligent", "common good" solutions, viz., ones that almost everyone would agree constitute social improvements. Coordination is useful across the spectrum of interpersonal communication -- from isolated individuals to organizational teams. Much attention has been paid to coordination in teams and organizations. In this paper we focus on the looser interpersonal structures we call active support networks (ASNs), and on technology that meets their needs. We describe two needfinding investigations focused on social support, which examined (a) four application areas for improving coordination in ASNs: (i) academic coaching, (ii) vocational training, (iii) early learning intervention, and (iv) volunteer coordination; and (b) existing technology relevant to ASNs. We find a thus-far unmet need for personal task management software that allows smooth integration with an individual's active support network. Based on identified needs, we then describe an open architecture for coordination that has been developed into working software. The design includes a set of capabilities we call "social prompting," as well as templates for accomplishing multi-task goals, and an engine that controls coordination in the network. The resulting tool is currently available and in continuing development. We explain its use in ASNs with an example. Follow-up studies are underway in which the technology is being applied in existing support networks.Comment: 16 pages, 4 figures, Scheduled to appear in AI & Society, 33(1), 201

DIALOGIC: A Core Natural-Language Processing System

The DIALOGIC system translates English sentences into representations of their literal meaning in the context of an utterance. These representations, or "logical forms," are intended to be a purely formal language that is as close as possible to the structure of natural language, while providing the semantic compositionality necessary for meaning-dependent computational processing. The design of DIALOGIC (and of its constituent modules) was influenced by the goal of using it as the core language-processing component in a variety of systems, some of which are transportable to new domains of application.Engineering and Applied Science

Translating English Into Logical Form

A scheme for syntax-directed truslation that mirrors compositional model-theoretic semantics is discussed. The scheme is the basis for an English translation system called PATR and was used to specify a semantically interesting fragment of English, including such constructs as tense, aspect, module, and various iexicafiy controlled verb complement structures. PATR was embedded in a question-answering system that replied appropriately to questions requiring the computation of logical entailments

General Terms

In this paper, we describe the Quindi Meeting Companion, a personal software tool for documenting content-rich meetings. We examine the principal motivations for the system, key design decisions, and new practices enabled by the technology. Categories and Subject Descriptors H.5.1 [Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g., HCI)]: Multimedia Information Systems – audio input/output, hypertext navigation and maps, video