Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2851613.2851703acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Learning relational probabilistic action models for online planning with decision forests

Published: 04 April 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Performance of online planning correlates with predictive quality of the used model. A predictive domain model manually specified at design time may yield poor predictive quality at runtime, either due to specification errors or due to unexpected change. Learning a predictive model from runtime observations allows to identify and recover from predictive inaccuracy due to erroneous specification or unexpected change. We propose Relational Probabilistic Action Forests, an approach for learning probabilistic predictive action models for relational data with decision forests. This enables generalization over discrete relational training data, yielding fast learning rates by exploitation of relational structure. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach.

References

[1]
H. Blockeel and L. D. Raedt. Top-down induction of first-order logical decision trees. Artificial Intelligence, 101(1--2):285--297, 1998.
[2]
L. Breiman. Technical note: Some properties of splitting criteria. Machine Learning, 24(1):41--47, 1996.
[3]
L. Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning, 45(1):5--32, 2001.
[4]
G. W. Brier. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly weather review, 78(1):1--3, 1950.
[5]
C. B. Browne, E. Powley, D. Whitehouse, S. M. Lucas, P. I. Cowling, P. Rohlfshagen, S. Tavener, D. Perez, S. Samothrakis, and S. Colton. A survey of Monte Carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, 4(1):1--43, 2012.
[6]
A. Criminisi, J. Shotton, and E. Konukoglu. Decision forests: A unified framework for classification, regression, density estimation, manifold learning and semi-supervised learning. Now, 2012.
[7]
K. Driessens. Relational reinforcement learning. In Encyclopedia of Machine Learning, pages 857--862. Springer, 2010.
[8]
K. Driessens and J. Ramon. Relational instance based regression for relational reinforcement learning. In ICML, pages 123--130, 2003.
[9]
T. Gärtner, K. Driessens, and J. Ramon. Graph kernels and gaussian processes for relational reinforcement learning. In Inductive Logic Programming, pages 146--163. Springer, 2003.
[10]
L. Getoor. Introduction to statistical relational learning. MIT press, 2007.
[11]
T. Hester, M. Quinlan, and P. Stone. Rtmba: A real-time model-based reinforcement learning architecture for robot control. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE International Conference on, pages 85--90. IEEE, 2012.
[12]
T. Hester and P. Stone. Texplore: real-time sample-efficient reinforcement learning for robots. Machine learning, 90(3):385--429, 2013.
[13]
G. E. Hinton, S. Osindero, and Y.-W. Teh. A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural computation, 18(7):1527--1554, 2006.
[14]
S. Neubert, L. Belzner, and M. Wirsing. Algebraic reinforcement learning - hypothesis induction for relational reinforcement learning using term generalization. In Logic, Rewriting, and Concurrency 2015, pages 562--579, 2015.
[15]
H. M. Pasula, L. S. Zettlemoyer, and L. P. Kaelbling. Learning symbolic models of stochastic domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, pages 309--352, 2007.
[16]
C. Rodrigues, P. Gérard, C. Rouveirol, and H. Soldano. Incremental learning of relational action rules. In Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), 2010, pages 451--458. IEEE, 2010.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SAC '16: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
April 2016
2360 pages
ISBN:9781450337397
DOI:10.1145/2851613
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 April 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. decision forests
  2. online planning
  3. relational learning

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SAC 2016
Sponsor:
SAC 2016: Symposium on Applied Computing
April 4 - 8, 2016
Pisa, Italy

Acceptance Rates

SAC '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 252 of 1,047 submissions, 24%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,650 of 6,669 submissions, 25%

Upcoming Conference

SAC '25
The 40th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing
March 31 - April 4, 2025
Catania , Italy

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 73
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media