Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

Machine learning

Deposits of clastic carbonate-dominated (calciclastic) sedimentary slope systems in the rock record have been identified mostly as linearly-consistent carbonate apron deposits, even though most ancient clastic carbonate slope deposits fit the submarine fan systems better. Calciclastic submarine fans are consequently rarely described and are poorly understood. Subsequently, very little is known especially in mud-dominated calciclastic submarine fan systems. Presented in this study are a sedimentological core and petrographic characterisation of samples from eleven boreholes from the Lower Carboniferous of Bowland Basin (Northwest England) that reveals a >250 m thick calciturbidite complex deposited in a calciclastic submarine fan setting. Seven facies are recognised from core and thin section characterisation and are grouped into three carbonate turbidite sequences. They include: 1) Calciturbidites, comprising mostly of highto low-density, wavy-laminated bioclast-rich facies; 2) low-density densite mudstones which are characterised by planar laminated and unlaminated muddominated facies; and 3) Calcidebrites which are muddy or hyper-concentrated debrisflow deposits occurring as poorly-sorted, chaotic, mud-supported floatstones. These

Phd by thesis

In recent years research in the planning community has moved increasingly towards application of planners to realistic problems involving both time and many types of resources. For example, interest in planning demonstrated by the space research community has inspired work in observation scheduling, planetary rover exploration and spacecraft control domains. Other temporal and resource-intensive domains including logistics planning, plant control and manufacturing have also helped to focus the community on the modelling and reasoning issues that must be confronted to make planning technology meet the challenges of application.

The International Planning Competitions have acted as an important motivating force behind the progress that has been made in planning since 1998. The third competition (held in 2002) set the planning community the challenge of handling time and numeric resources. This necessitated the development of a modelling language capable of expressing temporal and numeric properties of planning domains. In this paper we describe the language, PDDL2.1, that was used in the competition. We describe the syntax of the language, its formal semantics and the validation of concurrent plans. We observe that PDDL2.1 has considerable modelling power -- exceeding the capabilities of current planning technology -- and presents a number of important challenges to the research community.

/pdf/pddl2-1-an-extension-to-pddl-for-expressing-temporal-1u955z1r8x.pdf

PDDL2.1: an extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains

Fast Downward is a classical planning system based on heuristic search. It can deal with general deterministic planning problems encoded in the propositional fragment of PDDL2.2, including advanced features like ADL conditions and effects and derived predicates (axioms). Like other well-known planners such as HSP and FF, Fast Downward is a progression planner, searching the space of world states of a planning task in the forward direction. However, unlike other PDDL planning systems, Fast Downward does not use the propositional PDDL representation of a planning task directly. Instead, the input is first translated into an alternative representation called multivalued planning tasks, which makes many of the implicit constraints of a propositional planning task explicit. Exploiting this alternative representation, Fast Downward uses hierarchical decompositions of planning tasks for computing its heuristic function, called the causal graph heuristic, which is very different from traditional HSP-like heuristics based on ignoring negative interactions of operators.

In this article, we give a full account of Fast Downward's approach to solving multivalued planning tasks. We extend our earlier discussion of the causal graph heuristic to tasks involving axioms and conditional effects and present some novel techniques for search control that are used within Fast Downward's best-first search algorithm: preferred operators transfer the idea of helpful actions from local search to global best-first search, deferred evaluation of heuristic functions mitigates the negative effect of large branching factors on search performance, and multiheuristic best-first search combines several heuristic evaluation functions within a single search algorithm in an orthogonal way. We also describe efficient data structures for fast state expansion (successor generators and axiom evaluators) and present a new non-heuristic search algorithm called focused iterative-broadening search, which utilizes the information encoded in causal graphs in a novel way.

Fast Downward has proven remarkably successful: It won the "classical" (i. e., propositional, non-optimising) track of the 4th International Planning Competition at ICAPS 2004, following in the footsteps of planners such as FF and LPG. Our experiments show that it also performs very well on the benchmarks of the earlier planning competitions and provide some insights about the usefulness of the new search enhancements.

https://www.aaai.org/Papers/JAIR/Vol26/JAIR-2606.pdf

The fast downward planning system

http://user.it.uu.se/~jarst116/slides/week4.pdf

Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation

Current heuristic estimators for classical domain-independent planning are usually based on one of four ideas: delete relaxations, critical paths, abstractions, and, most recently, landmarks. Previously, these different ideas for deriving heuristic functions were largely unconnected.

We prove that admissible heuristics based on these ideas are in fact very closely related. Exploiting this relationship, we introduce a new admissible heuristic called the landmark cut heuristic, which compares favourably with the state of the art in terms of heuristic accuracy and overall performance.

/pdf/landmarks-critical-paths-and-abstractions-what-s-the-e5m2y8bfej.pdf

Landmarks, critical paths and abstractions: what's the difference anyway?

We describe an approach to deriving consistent heuristics for automated planning, based on explicit search in abstract state spaces. The key to managing complexity is interleaving composition of abstractions over different sets of state variables with abstraction of the partial composites.

The approach is very general and can be instantiated in many different ways by following different abstraction strategies. In particular, the technique subsumes planning with pattern databases as a special case. Moreover, with suitable abstraction strategies it is possible to derive perfect heuristics in a number of classical benchmark domains, thus allowing their optimal solution in polynomial time.

To evaluate the practical usefulness of the approach, we perform empirical experiments with one particular abstraction strategy. Our results show that the approach is competitive with the state of the art.

/pdf/flexible-abstraction-heuristics-for-optimal-sequential-2llz1b5tc3.pdf

Flexible abstraction heuristics for optimal sequential planning

http://www2.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~ki/papers/helmert-aij2009.pdf

Concise finite-domain representations for PDDL planning tasks

In recent years, heuristic search methods for classical planning have achieved remarkable results. Their most successful representative, the FF algorithm, performs well over a wide spectrum of planning domains and still sets the state of the art for STRIPS planning. However, there are some planning domains in which algorithms like FF and HSP perform poorly because their relaxation method of ignoring the "delete lists" of STRIPS operators loses too much vital information.

Planning domains which have many dead ends in the search space are especially problematic in this regard. In some domains, dead ends are readily found by the human observer yet remain undetected by all propositional planning systems we are aware of. We believe that this is partly because the STRIPS representation obscures the important causal structure of the domain, which is evident to humans.

In this paper, we propose translating STRIPS problems to a planning formalism with multi-valued state variables in order to expose this underlying causal structure. Moreover, we show how this structure can be exploited by an algorithm for detecting dead ends in the search space and by a planning heuristic based on hierarchical problem decomposition.

Our experiments show excellent overall performance on the benchmarks from the international planning competitions.

/pdf/a-planning-heuristic-based-on-causal-graph-analysis-1b3y73c2h9.pdf

Malte Helmert

Papers

The fast downward planning system

Landmarks, critical paths and abstractions: what's the difference anyway?

Flexible abstraction heuristics for optimal sequential planning

Concise finite-domain representations for PDDL planning tasks

A planning heuristic based on causal graph analysis