Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Mixed‐Initiative Goal Manipulation

Published: 01 June 2007 Publication History

Abstract

Mixed‐initiative planning systems attempt to integrate human and AI planners so that the synthesis results in high‐quality plans. In the AI community, the dominant model of planning is search. In state‐space planning, search consists of backward and forward chaining through the effects and preconditions of operator representations. Although search is an acceptable mechanism to use in performing automated planning, we present an alternative model to present to the user at the interface of a mixed‐initiative planning assistant. That is, we propose to model planning as a goal‐manipulation task. Here planning involves moving goals through a hyperspace in order to reach equilibrium between available resources and the constraints of a dynamic environment. The users can establish and “steer” goals through a visual representation of the planning domain. They can associate resources with particular goals and shift goals along various dimensions in response to changing conditions as well as change the structure of previous plans. Users need not know the details of the underlying technology, even when search is used within. This article empirically examines user performance under both the search and the goal‐manipulation models of planning and shows that many users do better with the latter.

References

[1]
Aha, D., ed. 2002. Papers presented at the Workshop on Mixed‐Initiative Case‐based Reasoning, held during the Sixth European Conference on Case‐Based Reasoning, ECCBR, Aberdeen, Scotland, 4 September.
[2]
Becker, M. A., and Smith, S. F. 2000. Mixed‐Initiative Resource Management: The AMC Narrel Allocator. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning System, ed. S. Chien, S. Kambhampati, and C. A. Knoblock, 32–41. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
[3]
Burstein, M., ed. 1994. Proceedings of the ARPA/Rome Laboratory Knowledge‐based Planning and Scheduling Initiative Workshop. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
[4]
Carbonell, J. G., Blythe, J., Etzioni, O., Gil, Y., Joseph, R., Kahn, D., Knoblock, C., Minton, S., Perez, A., Reilly, S., Veloso, M. M.; and Wang, X. 1992. Prodigy 4.0: The Manual and Tutorial. Technical Report CMU‐CS‐92‐150. Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
[5]
Chien, S., Hill, R., Wang, X., Estlin, T., Fayyad, K.; & Mortenson, H. 1996. Why Real‐world Planning Is Difficult: A Tale of Two Applications. In New Directions in AI Planning, ed. M. Ghallab and A. Milani, 287–298. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
[6]
Cox, M. T. 2000. A Conflict of Metaphors: Modeling the Planning Process. In Proceedings of the 2000 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, 666–671. San Diego: The Society for Computer Simulation International.
[7]
Cox, M. T., and Veloso, M. M. 1998. Goal Transformations in Continuous Planning. Unpublished paper presented at the AAAI Fall Symposium on Distributed Continual Planning.
[8]
Cox, M. T., and Veloso, M. M. 1997. Supporting Combined Human and Machine Planning: An Interface for Planning by Analogical Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Case‐Based Reasoning, ed. D. Leake and E. Plaza, 531–540. Berlin: Springer.
[9]
Cox, M. T., Edwin, G., Balasubramanian, K.; and Elahi, M. 2001. Multiagent Goal Transformation and Mixed‐Initiative Planning Using Prodigy/Agent. In Proceedings of the 4th International Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Vol. 7 (1–6). Orlando, FL: International Institute of Informatics and Systemics.
[10]
Das, J. P., and Naglieri, J. A. 2001. The DasNaglieri Cognitive Assessment System in Theory and Practice. In Handbook of Psychological Assessment: Ability, Achievement, and Behavior in Children, ed. J. J. W. Andrews, D. H. Saklofske, and H. L. Janzen, 34–63. San Diego: Academic Press.
[11]
Das, J. P., Kar, B. C.; and Parilla, R. K. 1996. Cognitive Planning: The Psychological Basis of Intelligent Behavior. London: Sage Publications.
[12]
Edwin, G. 2001. COMAS: Coordination in Multiagent Systems. Masters dissertation, Wright State University, Computer Science and Engineering Department, Dayton, OH.
[13]
Edwin, G., and Cox, M. T. 2001. Resource Coordination in Single Agent and Multiagent Systems. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, 18–24. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
[14]
Elahi, M. M. 2003. A Distributed Planning Approach Using Multiagent Goal Transformations. Masters dissertation, Wright State University, Computer Science and Engineering Department, Dayton, OH.
[15]
Elahi, M., and Cox, M. T. 2005. A Multiagent Approach to AI Planning. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Islamic University of Technology (IUT).
[16]
Ferguson, G., and Allen, J. 1998. TRIPS: An Intelligent Integrated Problem‐Solving Assistant. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 567–573. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
[17]
Finin, T., Labrou, Y.; and Mayfield, J. 1997. KQML as an Agent Communication Language. In Software Agents, ed. J. Bradshaw, 291–316. Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.
[18]
Forbus, K., Usher, J.; and Chapman, V. 2003. Sketching for Military Courses of Action Diagrams. In Proceedings of the Intelligent User Interfaces Conference (IUI‐03). New York: ACM Press.
[19]
Immaneni, T., and Cox, M. T. 2004. GTrans: An Application for Mixed‐Initiative Collaborative Planning during Emergency Response Situations. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems, ed. W. W. Smari and W. McQuay, 121–126. San Diego: Society of Modeling and Simulation International.
[20]
Myers, K. L., Jarvis, P. A., Tyson, W. M.; and Wolverton, M. J. 2003. A Mixed‐Initiative Framework for Robust Plan Sketching. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ed. Enrico Giunchiglia, Nicola Muscettola, and Dana Nau, 256–265. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
[21]
Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.
[22]
Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. 1963. GPS, A Program That Simulates Human Thought. In Computers and Thought, ed. E. A. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman, 279–293. New York: McGraw Hill.
[23]
Pollack, M. E., and Horty, J. F. 1999. There's More to Life than Making Plans. AI Magazine 20(4): 71–83.
[24]
Ram, A., and Leake, D. 1995. Learning, Goals, and Learning Goal. In Goal‐Driven Learning, ed. A. Ram and D. Leake, 1–37. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[25]
Ratterman, M. J., Spector, L., Grafman, J., Levin, H.; and Harward, H. 2001. Partial and Total‐Order Planning: Evidence from Normal and Prefrontally Damaged Populations. Cognitive Science, 25(6): 941–975.
[26]
Schank, R. C. 1982. Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[27]
Schank, R. C., and Abelson, R. P. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[28]
Shapiro, S., Lesperance, Y.; and Levesque, H. 2005. Goal Change. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 582–588. Detroit, MI: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.
[29]
Sycara, K., and Lewis, M. 2004. Integrating Intelligent Agents into Human Teams. In Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors That Drive Process and Performance, ed. E. Salas and S. Fiore, 203–231. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[30]
Tecuci, G., Boicu, M.; and Cox, M. T. 2007. Seven Aspects of Mixed‐Initiative Reasoning. AI Magazine (28)1.
[31]
Thompson, C. A., Goker, M. H.; and Langley, P. 2004. A Personalized System for Conversational Recommendations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21: 393–428.
[32]
Veloso, M. M. 1994. Planning and Learning by Analogical Reasoning. Berlin: Springer.
[33]
Veloso, M. M., Carbonell, J. G., Perez, A., Borrajo, D., Fink, E.; and Blythe, J. 1995. Integrating Planning and Learning: The PRODIGY Architecture. Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Artificial Intelligence 7(1): 81–120.
[34]
Vukovic, M., and Robinson, P. 2005. Goal Morph: Partial Goal Satisfaction for Flexible Service Composition. International Journal of Web Services Practices 1(1‐2): 40–56.
[35]
Williamson, M. 1996. A Value‐Directed Approach to Planning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Computer Science Department, Seattle, WA.
[36]
Zhang, C. 2002. Cognitive Models for Mixed‐Initiative Planning. Masters dissertation, Wright State University, Computer Science and Engineering Department, Dayton, OH.
[37]
Zhang, C., Cox, M. T.; and Immaneni, T. 2002. GTrans Version 2.1 User Manual and Reference. Technical Report No. WSU‐CS‐02‐02. Dayton, OH: Wright State University, Department of Computer Science and Engineering.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Goal-Oriented End-User Programming of RobotsProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610977.3634974(582-591)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

Publisher

American Association for Artificial Intelligence

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 June 2007

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Goal-Oriented End-User Programming of RobotsProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610977.3634974(582-591)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media