Y. Gil, M Hoffman, and A. Tate. Domain Specific Criteria to Direct and Evaluate Planning Systems. Technical Report ISI-93-365, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA, 1994.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....soccer game is one scenario used to promote research on cooperation between autonomous agents and robots in dynamic multi agent environments. A simulation league complements the robot league in the many national and international contests each year. Maybe inspired by the virtual island PACIFICA [29, 11] in which the generation and execution of plans for non combatant evacuation operations have been tested, the RoboCup initiative has defined a new challenge: the RoboCup Rescue challenge. Its simulator of a large scale urban disaster currently embraces four modules, i.e. for simulating collapsing ....

Y. Gil, M Hoffman, and A. Tate. Domain Specific Criteria to Direct and Evaluate Planning Systems. Technical Report ISI-93-365, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA, 1994.

....proposed a conceptual design for predicting the force size and type required for a NEO. Chavez and Henrion (1994) described a decision theoretic approach for instantiating a general NEO plan with specific parameters for locations, forces, and destinations, and used it to assess alternative plans. Gil et al. 1994) presented a system for predicting manning estimates for certain NEO tasks. None of these systems formulate NEO plans. However, desJardins et al. 1998) proposed a distributed hierarchical planning approach, but this system has not yet been implemented. Although DARPA and other agencies have ....

Gil, Y., Hoffman, M. & Tate, A. (1994). Domain-specific criteria to direct and evaluate planning systems. Proceedings of the ARPA/Rome Laboratory Knowledge-Based Planing and Scheduling Initiative (pp. 433--444). Tuscon, AR: Morgan Kaufmann.

....there are code libraries, like SBF [Klinker et al. 1991] or PROTG [Musen 1992] where the main components are program modules that are described in high level terms but are essentially meant to be asembed and implemented into a knowledge based system. The EXPECT framework [Swartout and Gil 1995; Gil 1994] combines both views. It lends itself to building self organizing libraries [Swartout et al. 1999] in the sense that tools can automatically find the right place for a new method in the library and can use the methods stored in the library to build a problem solver for a specific problem. To this ....

Gil, Y., Hoffman, M., and Tate, A. Domain-specific criteria to direct and evaluate planning systems. In ARPA/Rome Laboratory Knowledge-based Planning and Scheduling Initiative Workshop Proceedings, pp. 433-444, Tucson, Arizona, February 1994.

.... system components, agents and users based on the mutual communication of such constraints on activity as a metaphor for mixed initiative planning [15] Work in this area includes improved characterisation of the value of one plan over another using domain related characteristics and features [6]. Emphasis will therefore shift to the user interface in the Task Assignment agent of O Plan and its interface to the Planning agent. Acknowledgements O Plan is an on going project at Edinburgh. Current O Plan work is supported by the us Advanced Research Projects Agency (arpa) and the us Air ....

Gil, Y., Tate, A. and Hoffman, M., Domain-Specific Criteria to Direct and Evaluate Planning Systems, Proceedings of the ARPA/Rome Laboratory Planning Initiative Workshop, (ed. M.Burstein), Morgan-Kaufmann, 1994.

....two keys issues: ffl to provide a tool expect [7] which allows human planners to define criteria for plan quality and for preferences among alternative plans and options. ffl to operationalise these criteria to guide a generative planner O Plan in proposing better quality plans [8, 5, 6]. The approach taken has been to combine the O Plan planner with a knowledge based system that reasons about plan evaluation expect Figure 5 describes the architecture of the O Plan and expect systems and the way in which plans and analysis information flows. Using these two systems it has been ....

Gil, Y., Hoffman, M. and Tate, A. Domain Specific Criteria to Direct and Evaluate Planning Systems, in proceedings of the arpa/Rome Laboratory Planning Initiative Workshop, Tucson, February 1994. Published by Morgan Kaufmann, Published Inc, San Francisco, usa, 1994.

....on addressing two issues: ffl to provide a tool expect [21] which allows human planners to define criteria for plan quality and preferences among alternative plans and options. ffl to operationalise these criteria to guide a generative planner in proposing better quality plans [14] 15] [22] [See Related Paper G] Advisor Evaluation Function Different Qualitatively Plans Tasking and Option Selection Plan Analysis Tool Planner Comparisons Plan Plans Figure 3: Combining a Planner and a Plan Analysis Tool An approach is being investigated which combines the O Plan planner with the ....

Gil, Y., Tate, A. and Hoffman, M., Domain-Specific Criteria to Direct and Evaluate Planning Systems, Proceedings of the ARPA/Rome Laboratory Planning Initiative Workshop, (ed. Burstein, M.), Morgan-Kaufmann, 1994.

No context found.

Gil, Y., Tate, A. and Hoffman, M., Domain-Specific Criteria to Direct and Evaluate Planning Systems, Proceedings of the ARPA/Rome Laboratory Planning Initiative Workshop, (ed. Burstein, M.), Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC