Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Abstract: In this work we study a well-known and challenging problem of Multi-agent Pathfinding, when a set of agents is confined to a graph, each agent is assigned a unique start and goal vertices and the task is to find a set of collision-free paths (one for each agent) such that each agent reaches its respective goal. We investigate how to utilize Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to solve the problem. Although MCTS was shown to demonstrate superior performance in a wide range of problems like playing antagonistic games (e.g. Go, Chess etc.), discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms etc., its application to the problem at hand was not well studied before. To this end we introduce an original variant of MCTS, tailored to multi-agent pathfinding. The crux of our approach is how the reward, that guides MCTS, is computed. Specifically, we use individual paths to assist the agents with the the goal-reaching behavior, while leaving them freedom to get off the track if it is needed to avoid collisions. We also use a dedicated decomposition technique to reduce the branching factor of the tree search procedure. Empirically we show that the suggested method outperforms the baseline planning algorithm that invokes heuristic search, e.g. A*, at each re-planning step.

Abstract: Ontologies are known for their ability to organize rich metadata, support the identification of novel insights via semantic queries, and promote reuse. In this paper, we consider the problem of automated planning, where the objective is to find a sequence of actions that will move an agent from an initial state of the world to a desired goal state. We hypothesize that given a large number of available planners and diverse planning domains; they carry essential information that can be leveraged to identify suitable planners and improve their performance for a domain. We use data on planning domains and planners from the International Planning Competition (IPC) to construct a planning ontology and demonstrate via experiments in two use cases that the ontology can lead to the selection of promising planners and improving their performance using macros - a form of action ordering constraints extracted from planning ontology. We also make the planning ontology and associated resources available to the community to promote further research.

Abstract: Rubik's Cube (RC) is a well-known and computationally challenging puzzle that has motivated AI researchers to explore efficient alternative representations and problem-solving methods. The ideal situation for planning here is that a problem be solved optimally and efficiently represented in a standard notation using a general-purpose solver and heuristics. The fastest solver today for RC is DeepCubeA with a custom representation, and another approach is with Scorpion planner with State-Action-Space+ (SAS+) representation. In this paper, we present the first RC representation in the popular PDDL language so that the domain becomes more accessible to PDDL planners, competitions, and knowledge engineering tools, and is more human-readable. We then bridge across existing approaches and compare performance. We find that in one comparable experiment, DeepCubeA solves all problems with varying complexities, albeit only 18\% are optimal plans. For the same problem set, Scorpion with SAS+ representation and pattern database heuristics solves 61.50\% problems, while FastDownward with PDDL representation and FF heuristic solves 56.50\% problems, out of which all the plans generated were optimal. Our study provides valuable insights into the trade-offs between representational choice and plan optimality that can help researchers design future strategies for challenging domains combining general-purpose solving methods (planning, reinforcement learning), heuristics, and representations (standard or custom).

Abstract: Argumentative explainable AI has been advocated by several in recent years, with an increasing interest on explaining the reasoning outcomes of Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). While there is a considerable body of research on qualitatively explaining the reasoning outcomes of AFs with debates/disputes/dialogues in the spirit of \emph{extension-based semantics}, explaining the quantitative reasoning outcomes of AFs under \emph{gradual semantics} has not received much attention, despite widespread use in applications. In this paper, we contribute to filling this gap by proposing a novel theory of \emph{Argument Attribution Explanations (AAEs)} by incorporating the spirit of feature attribution from machine learning in the context of Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs): whereas feature attribution is used to determine the influence of features towards outputs of machine learning models, AAEs are used to determine the influence of arguments towards \emph{topic argument}s of interest. We study desirable properties of AAEs, including some new ones and some partially adapted from the literature to our setting. To demonstrate the applicability of our AAEs in practice, we conclude by carrying out two case studies in the scenarios of fake news detection and movie recommender systems.