skip to main content


The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 10:00 PM ET on Friday, December 8 until 2:00 AM ET on Saturday, December 9 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Title: Problem recognition, explanation and goal formulation
Goal reasoning agents can solve novel problems by detecting an anomaly between expectations and observations, generating explanations about plausible causes for the anomaly, and formulating goals to remove the cause. Yet, not all anomalies represent problems. This paper addresses discerning the difference between benign anomalies and those that represent an actual problem for an agent. Furthermore, we present a new definition of the term “problem” in a goal reasoning context. This paper discusses the role of explanations and goal formulation in response to the developing problems and implements it; the paper also illustrates the above in a mine clearance domain and a labor relations domain. We also show the empirical difference between a standard planning agent, an agent that detects anomalies, and an agent that recognizes problems.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the 2021 World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, & Applied Computing (CSCE'21)
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Cox, Michael T. (Ed.)
    Goal reasoning agents can solve novel problems by detecting an anomaly between expectations and observations; generating explanations about plausible causes for the anomaly; and formulating goals to remove the cause. Yet not all anomalies represent problems. We claim that the task of discerning the difference between benign anomalies and those that represent an actual problem by an agent will increase its performance. Furthermore, we present a new definition of the term “problem” in a goal reasoning context. This paper discusses the role of explanations and goal formulation in response to developing problems and implements the response. The paper illustrates goal formulation in a mine clearance domain and a labor relations domain. We also show the empirical difference between a standard planning agent, an agent that detects anomalies and an agent that recognizes problems. 
    more » « less
  2. In human-aware planning systems, a planning agent might need to explain its plan to a human user when that plan appears to be non-feasible or sub-optimal. A popular approach, called model reconciliation, has been proposed as a way to bring the model of the human user closer to the agent’s model. To do so, the agent provides an explanation that can be used to update the model of human such that the agent’s plan is feasible or optimal to the human user. Existing approaches to solve this problem have been based on automated planning methods and have been limited to classical planning problems only. In this paper, we approach the model reconciliation problem from a different perspective, that of knowledge representation and reasoning, and demonstrate that our approach can be applied not only to classical planning problems but also hybrid systems planning problems with durative actions and events/processes. In particular, we propose a logic-based framework for explanation generation, where given a knowledge base KBa (of an agent) and a knowledge base KBh (of a human user), each encoding their knowledge of a planning problem, and that KBa entails a query q (e.g., that a proposed plan of the agent is valid), the goal is to identify an explanation ε ⊆ KBa such that when it is used to update KBh, then the updated KBh also entails q. More specifically, we make the following contributions in this paper: (1) We formally define the notion of logic-based explanations in the context of model reconciliation problems; (2) We introduce a number of cost functions that can be used to reflect preferences between explanations; (3) We present algorithms to compute explanations for both classical planning and hybrid systems planning problems; and (4) We empirically evaluate their performance on such problems. Our empirical results demonstrate that, on classical planning problems, our approach is faster than the state of the art when the explanations are long or when the size of the knowledge base is small (e.g., the plans to be explained are short). They also demonstrate that our approach is efficient for hybrid systems planning problems. Finally, we evaluate the real-world efficacy of explanations generated by our algorithms through a controlled human user study, where we develop a proof-of-concept visualization system and use it as a medium for explanation communication. 
    more » « less
  3. null (Ed.)
    In explainable planning, the planning agent needs to explain its plan to a human user, especially when the plan appears infeasible or suboptimal for the user. A popular approach is called model reconciliation, where the agent reconciles the differences between its model and the model of the user such that its plan is also feasible and optimal to the user. This problem can be viewed as a more general problem as follows: Given two knowledge bases πa and πh and a query q such that πa entails q and πh does not entail q, where the notion of entailment is dependent on the logical theories underlying πa and πh, how to change πh–given πa and the support for q in πa–so that πh does entail q. In this paper, we study this problem under the context of answer set programming. To achieve this goal, we (1) define the notion of a conditional update between two logic programs πa and πh with respect to a query q;(2) define the notion of an explanation for a query q from a program πa to a program πh using conditional updates;(3) develop algorithms for computing explanations; and (4) show how the notion of explanation based on conditional updates can be used in explainable planning. 
    more » « less
  4. Traffic networks are one of the most critical infrastructures for any community. The increasing integration of smart and connected sensors in traffic networks provides researchers with unique opportunities to study the dynamics of this critical community infrastructure. Our focus in this paper is on the failure dynamics of traffic networks. By failure, we mean in this domain the hindrance of the normal operation of a traffic network due to cyber anomalies or physical incidents that cause cascaded congestion throughout the network. We are specifically interested in analyzing the cascade effects of traffic congestion caused by physical incidents, focusing on developing mechanisms to isolate and identify the source of a congestion. To analyze failure propagation, it is crucial to develop (a) monitors that can identify an anomaly and (b) a model to capture the dynamics of anomaly propagation. In this paper, we use real traffic data from Nashville, TN to demonstrate a novel anomaly detector and a Timed Failure Propagation Graph based diagnostics mechanism. Our novelty lies in the ability to capture the the spatial information and the interconnections of the traffic network as well as the use of recurrent neural network architectures to learn and predict the operation of a graph edge as a function of its immediate peers, including both incoming and outgoing branches. Our results show that our LSTM-based traffic-speed predictors attain an average mean squared error of 6.55 10−4 on predicting normalized traffic speed, while Gaussian Process Regression based predictors attain a much higher aver- age mean squared error of 1.78 10−2. We are also able to detect anomalies with high precision and recall, resulting in an AUC (Area Under Curve) of 0.8507 for the precision- recall curve. To study physical traffic incidents, we augment the real data with simulated data generated using SUMO, a traffic simulator. Finally, we analyzed the cascading effect of the congestion propagation by formulating the problem as a Timed Failure Propagation Graph, which led us in identifying the source of a failure/congestion accurately. 
    more » « less
  5. Perusal of any common statics textbook will reveal a reference table of standard supports in the section introducing rigid body equilibrium analysis. Most statics students eventually memorize a heuristic approach to drawing a free-body diagram based on applying the information in this table. First, identify the entry in the table that matches the schematic representation of a connection. Then draw the corresponding force and/or couple moment vectors on the isolated body according to their positive sign conventions. Multiple studies have noted how even high performing students tend to rely on this heuristic rather than conceptual reasoning. Many students struggle when faced with a new engineering connection that does not match an entry in the supports table. In this paper, we describe an inquiry-based approach to introducing support models and free-body diagrams of rigid bodies. In a series of collaborative learning activities, students practice reasoning through the force interactions at example connections such as a bolted flange or a hinge by considering how the support resists translation and rotation in each direction. Each team works with the aid of a physical model to analyze how changes in the applied loads affect the reaction components. A second model of the isolated body provides opportunity to develop a tactile feel for the reaction forces. We emphasize predicting the direction of each reaction component, rather than following a standard sign convention, to provide opportunities for students to practice conceptual application of equilibrium conditions. Students’ also draw detailed diagrams of the force interactions at the mating surfaces in the connection, including distributed loadings when appropriate. We use equivalent systems concepts to relate these detailed force diagrams to conventional reaction components. Targeted assessments explore whether the approach described above might improve learning outcomes and influence how students think about free-body diagrams. Students use an online tool to attempt two multiple-choice concept questions after each activity. The questions represent near and far transfer applications of the concepts emphasized and prompt students for written explanation. Our analysis of the students’ explanations indicates that most students engage in the conceptual reasoning we encourage, though reasoning errors are common. Analysis of final exam work and comparison to an earlier term in which we used a more conventional approach indicate a majority of students incorporate conceptual reasoning practice into their approach to free-body diagrams. This does not come at the expense of problem-solving accuracy. Student feedback on the activities is overwhelmingly positive. 
    more » « less