Alberto Pozanco

Alberto Pozanco, Francesca Mosca, Parisa Zehtabi et al.

Scheduling is the task of assigning a set of scarce resources distributed over time to a set of agents, who typically have preferences about the assignments they would like to get. Due to the constrained nature of these problems, satisfying all agents' preferences is often infeasible, which might lead to some agents not being happy with the resulting schedule. Providing explanations has been shown to increase satisfaction and trust in solutions produced by AI tools. However, it is particularly challenging to explain solutions that are influenced by and impact on multiple agents. In this paper we introduce the EXPRES framework, which can explain why a given preference was unsatisfied in a given optimal schedule. The EXPRES framework consists of: (i) an explanation generator that, based on a Mixed-Integer Linear Programming model, finds the best set of reasons that can explain an unsatisfied preference; and (ii) an explanation parser, which translates the generated explanations into human interpretable ones. Through simulations, we show that the explanation generator can efficiently scale to large instances. Finally, through a set of user studies within J.P. Morgan, we show that employees preferred the explanations generated by EXPRES over human-generated ones when considering workforce scheduling scenarios.

Parisa Zehtabi, Alberto Pozanco, Ayala Bloch et al.

In many real-world scenarios, agents are involved in optimization problems. Since most of these scenarios are over-constrained, optimal solutions do not always satisfy all agents. Some agents might be unhappy and ask questions of the form ``Why does solution $S$ not satisfy property $P$?''. We propose CMAoE, a domain-independent approach to obtain contrastive explanations by: (i) generating a new solution $S^\prime$ where property $P$ is enforced, while also minimizing the differences between $S$ and $S^\prime$; and (ii) highlighting the differences between the two solutions, with respect to the features of the objective function of the multi-agent system. Such explanations aim to help agents understanding why the initial solution is better in the context of the multi-agent system than what they expected. We have carried out a computational evaluation that shows that CMAoE can generate contrastive explanations for large multi-agent optimization problems. We have also performed an extensive user study in four different domains that shows that: (i) after being presented with these explanations, humans' satisfaction with the original solution increases; and (ii) the constrastive explanations generated by CMAoE are preferred or equally preferred by humans over the ones generated by state of the art approaches.

Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo

In cooperative Multi-Agent Planning (MAP), a set of goals has to be achieved by a set of agents. Independently of whether they perform a pre-assignment of goals to agents or they directly search for a solution without any goal assignment, most previous works did not focus on a fair distribution/achievement of goals by agents. This paper adapts well-known fairness schemes to MAP, and introduces two novel approaches to generate cost-aware fair plans. The first one solves an optimization problem to pre-assign goals to agents, and then solves a centralized MAP task using that assignment. The second one consists of a planning-based compilation that allows solving the joint problem of goal assignment and planning while taking into account the given fairness scheme. Empirical results in several standard MAP benchmarks show that these approaches outperform different baselines. They also show that there is no need to sacrifice much plan cost to generate fair plans.

Leo Ardon, Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo et al.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms are known to scale poorly to environments with many available actions, requiring numerous samples to learn an optimal policy. The traditional approach of considering the same fixed action space in every possible state implies that the agent must understand, while also learning to maximize its reward, to ignore irrelevant actions such as $\textit{inapplicable actions}$ (i.e. actions that have no effect on the environment when performed in a given state). Knowing this information can help reduce the sample complexity of RL algorithms by masking the inapplicable actions from the policy distribution to only explore actions relevant to finding an optimal policy. While this technique has been formalized for quite some time within the Automated Planning community with the concept of precondition in the STRIPS language, RL algorithms have never formally taken advantage of this information to prune the search space to explore. This is typically done in an ad-hoc manner with hand-crafted domain logic added to the RL algorithm. In this paper, we propose a more systematic approach to introduce this knowledge into the algorithm. We (i) standardize the way knowledge can be manually specified to the agent; and (ii) present a new framework to autonomously learn the partial action model encapsulating the precondition of an action jointly with the policy. We show experimentally that learning inapplicable actions greatly improves the sample efficiency of the algorithm by providing a reliable signal to mask out irrelevant actions. Moreover, we demonstrate that thanks to the transferability of the knowledge acquired, it can be reused in other tasks and domains to make the learning process more efficient.

Andrew Murray, Danial Dervovic, Alberto Pozanco et al.

We present GenePlan (GENeralized Evolutionary Planner), a novel framework that leverages large language model (LLM) assisted evolutionary algorithms to generate domain-dependent generalized planners for classical planning tasks described in PDDL. By casting generalized planning as an optimization problem, GenePlan iteratively evolves interpretable Python planners that minimize plan length across diverse problem instances. In empirical evaluation across six existing benchmark domains and two new domains, GenePlan achieved an average SAT score of 0.91, closely matching the performance of the state-of-the-art planners (SAT score 0.93), and significantly outperforming other LLM-based baselines such as chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting (average SAT score 0.64). The generated planners solve new instances rapidly (average 0.49 seconds per task) and at low cost (average $1.82 per domain using GPT-4o).

Giuseppe Canonaco, Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo

Grounding is a critical step in classical planning, yet it often becomes a computational bottleneck due to the exponential growth in grounded actions and atoms as task size increases. Recent advances in partial grounding have addressed this challenge by incrementally grounding only the most promising operators, guided by predictive models. However, these approaches primarily rely on relational features or learned embeddings and do not leverage the textual and structural cues present in PDDL descriptions. We propose SPG-LLM, which uses LLMs to analyze the domain and problem files to heuristically identify potentially irrelevant objects, actions, and predicates prior to grounding, significantly reducing the size of the grounded task. Across seven hard-to-ground benchmarks, SPG-LLM achieves faster grounding-often by orders of magnitude-while delivering comparable or better plan costs in some domains.

Marianela Morales, Alberto Pozanco, Giuseppe Canonaco et al.

Most of the work on learning action models focus on learning the actions' dynamics from input plans. This allows us to specify the valid plans of a planning task. However, very little work focuses on learning action costs, which in turn allows us to rank the different plans. In this paper we introduce a new problem: that of learning the costs of a set of actions such that a set of input plans are optimal under the resulting planning model. To solve this problem we present $LACFIP^k$, an algorithm to learn action's costs from unlabeled input plans. We provide theoretical and empirical results showing how $LACFIP^k$ can successfully solve this task.

Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo, Manuela Veloso

Automated planning traditionally assumes that all aspects of a planning task (initial state, goals, and available actions) are fully specified in advance, an approach well-suited to domains with fixed rules and deterministic execution. However, real-world planning often requires flexibility, allowing for deviations from the original task parameters in response to unforeseen circumstances or to improve outcomes. This paper surveys existing works on counterfactual reasoning in automated planning, categorizing them by what elements are changed, when the reasoning is triggered, and why and how these changes are made. We conclude by discussing key findings and outlining open research questions to guide future work in this area.

Daniel Borrajo, Giuseppe Canonaco, Tomás de la Rosa et al.

Classical AI Planning techniques generate sequences of actions for complex tasks. However, they lack the ability to understand planning tasks when provided using natural language. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has introduced novel capabilities in human-computer interaction. In the context of planning tasks, LLMs have shown to be particularly good in interpreting human intents among other uses. This paper introduces GenPlanX that integrates LLMs for natural language-based description of planning tasks, with a classical AI planning engine, alongside an execution and monitoring framework. We demonstrate the efficacy of GenPlanX in assisting users with office-related tasks, highlighting its potential to streamline workflows and enhance productivity through seamless human-AI collaboration.

Giuseppe Canonaco, Leo Ardon, Alberto Pozanco et al.

The use of Potential-Based Reward Shaping (PBRS) has shown great promise in the ongoing research effort to tackle sample inefficiency in Reinforcement Learning (RL). However, choosing the right potential function remains an open challenge. Additionally, RL techniques are usually constrained to use a finite horizon for computational limitations, which introduces a bias when using PBRS. In this paper, we first build some theoretically-grounded intuition on why selecting the potential function as the optimal value function of the task at hand produces performance advantages. We then analyse the bias induced by finite horizons in the context of PBRS producing novel insights. Finally, leveraging abstractions as a way to approximate the optimal value function of the given task, we assess the sample efficiency and performance impact of PBRS on four environments including a goal-oriented navigation task and three Arcade Learning Environments (ALE) games. Remarkably, experimental results show that we can reach the same level of performance as CNN-based solutions with a simple fully-connected network.

Alberto Pozanco, Marianela Morales, Pietro Totis et al.

Most research in planning focuses on generating a plan to achieve a desired set of goals. However, a goal specification can also be used to encode a property that should never hold, allowing a planner to identify a trace that would reach a flawed state. In such cases, the objective may shift to modifying the planning task to ensure that the flawed state is never reached-in other words, to make the planning task unsolvable. In this paper we introduce planning task shielding: the problem of detecting and repairing flaws in planning tasks. We propose $allmin$, an optimal algorithm that solves these tasks by minimally modifying the original actions to render the planning task unsolvable. We empirically evaluate the performance of $allmin$ in shielding planning tasks of increasing size, showing how it can effectively shield the system by turning the planning task unsolvable.

Giuseppe Canonaco, Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo

The concept of abstraction has been independently developed both in the context of AI Planning and discounted Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). However, the way abstractions are built and used in the context of Planning and MDPs is different even though lots of commonalities can be highlighted. To this day there is no work trying to relate and unify the two fields on the matter of abstractions unraveling all the different assumptions and their effect on the way they can be used. Therefore, in this paper we aim to do so by looking at projection abstractions in Planning through the lenses of discounted MDPs. Starting from a projection abstraction built according to Classical or Probabilistic Planning techniques, we will show how the same abstraction can be obtained under the abstraction frameworks available for discounted MDPs. Along the way, we will focus on computational as well as representational advantages and disadvantages of both worlds pointing out new research directions that are of interest for both fields.

Alberto Pozanco, Ramon Fraga Pereira, Daniel Borrajo

In Environment Design, one interested party seeks to affect another agent's decisions by applying changes to the environment. Most research on planning environment (re)design assumes the interested party's objective is to facilitate the recognition of goals and plans, and search over the space of environment modifications to find the minimal set of changes that simplify those tasks and optimise a particular metric. This search space is usually intractable, so existing approaches devise metric-dependent pruning techniques for performing search more efficiently. This results in approaches that are not able to generalise across different objectives and/or metrics. In this paper, we argue that the interested party could have objectives and metrics that are not necessarily related to recognising agents' goals or plans. Thus, to generalise the task of Planning Environment Redesign, we develop a general environment redesign approach that is metric-agnostic and leverages recent research on top-quality planning to efficiently redesign planning environments according to any interested party's objective and metric. Experiments over a set of environment redesign benchmarks show that our general approach outperforms existing approaches when using well-known metrics, such as facilitating the recognition of goals, as well as its effectiveness when solving environment redesign tasks that optimise a novel set of different metrics.

Pietro Totis, Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo

Organizations are increasingly focused on leveraging data from their processes to gain insights and drive decision-making. However, converting this data into actionable knowledge remains a difficult and time-consuming task. There is often a gap between the volume of data collected and the ability to process and understand it, which automated knowledge discovery aims to fill. Automated knowledge discovery involves complex open problems, including effectively navigating data, building models to extract implicit relationships, and considering subjective goals and knowledge. In this paper, we introduce a novel method for Automated Insights and Data Exploration (AIDE), that serves as a robust foundation for tackling these challenges through the use of Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). We evaluate AIDE using both real-world and synthetic data, demonstrating its effectiveness in identifying data transformations and models that uncover interesting data patterns. Among its strengths, AIDE's MCTS-based framework offers significant extensibility, allowing for future integration of additional pattern extraction strategies and domain knowledge. This makes AIDE a valuable step towards developing a comprehensive solution for automated knowledge discovery.

Alberto Pozanco, Marianela Morales, Daniel Borrajo et al.

In many planning applications, we might be interested in finding plans that minimally modify the initial state to achieve the goals. We refer to this concept as plan disruption. In this paper, we formally introduce it, and define various planning-based compilations that aim to jointly optimize both the sum of action costs and plan disruption. Experimental results in different benchmarks show that the reformulated task can be effectively solved in practice to generate plans that balance both objectives.

Alberto Pozanco, Marianela Morales, Daniel Borrajo et al.

Identifying the specific actions that achieve goals when solving a planning task might be beneficial for various planning applications. Traditionally, this identification occurs post-search, as some actions may temporarily achieve goals that are later undone and re-achieved by other actions. In this paper, we propose a compilation that extends the original planning task with commit actions that enforce the persistence of specific goals once achieved, allowing planners to identify permanent goal achievement during planning. Experimental results indicate that solving the reformulated tasks does not incur on any additional overhead both when performing optimal and suboptimal planning, while providing useful information for some downstream tasks.

Tomas de la Rosa, Sriram Gopalakrishnan, Alberto Pozanco et al.

Travel planning is a complex task that involves generating a sequence of actions related to visiting places subject to constraints and maximizing some user satisfaction criteria. Traditional approaches rely on problem formulation in a given formal language, extracting relevant travel information from web sources, and use an adequate problem solver to generate a valid solution. As an alternative, recent Large Language Model (LLM) based approaches directly output plans from user requests using language. Although LLMs possess extensive travel domain knowledge and provide high-level information like points of interest and potential routes, current state-of-the-art models often generate plans that lack coherence, fail to satisfy constraints fully, and do not guarantee the generation of high-quality solutions. We propose TRIP-PAL, a hybrid method that combines the strengths of LLMs and automated planners, where (i) LLMs get and translate travel information and user information into data structures that can be fed into planners; and (ii) automated planners generate travel plans that guarantee constraint satisfaction and optimize for users' utility. Our experiments across various travel scenarios show that TRIP-PAL outperforms an LLM when generating travel plans.

Alberto Pozanco, Daniel Borrajo, Manuela Veloso

In many real-world planning applications, agents might be interested in finding plans whose actions have costs that are as uniform as possible. Such plans provide agents with a sense of stability and predictability, which are key features when humans are the agents executing plans suggested by planning tools. This paper adapts three uniformity metrics to automated planning, and introduce planning-based compilations that allow to lexicographically optimize sum of action costs and action costs uniformity. Experimental results both in well-known and novel planning benchmarks show that the reformulated tasks can be effectively solved in practice to generate uniform plans.

Alberto Pozanco, Yolanda E-Martín, Susana Fernández et al.

In competitive environments, commonly agents try to prevent opponents from achieving their goals. Most previous preventing approaches assume the opponent's goal is known a priori. Others only start executing actions once the opponent's goal has been inferred. In this work we introduce a novel domain-independent algorithm called Anticipatory Counterplanning. It combines inference of opponent's goals with computation of planning centroids to yield proactive counter strategies in problems where the opponent's goal is unknown. Experimental results show how this novel technique outperforms reactive counterplanning, increasing the chances of stopping the opponent from achieving its goals.

Daniel Ciolek, Nicolás D'Ippolito, Alberto Pozanco et al.

A planning domain, as any model, is never complete and inevitably makes assumptions on the environment's dynamic. By allowing the specification of just one domain model, the knowledge engineer is only able to make one set of assumptions, and to specify a single objective-goal. Borrowing from work in Software Engineering, we propose a multi-tier framework for planning that allows the specification of different sets of assumptions, and of different corresponding objectives. The framework aims to support the synthesis of adaptive behavior so as to mitigate the intrinsic risk in any planning modeling task. After defining the multi-tier planning task and its solution concept, we show how to solve problem instances by a succinct compilation to a form of non-deterministic planning. In doing so, our technique justifies the applicability of planning with both fair and unfair actions, and the need for more efforts in developing planning systems supporting dual fairness assumptions.

Robert C. Holte, Ruben Majadas, Alberto Pozanco et al.

Weighted A* (wA*) is a widely used algorithm for rapidly, but suboptimally, solving planning and search problems. The cost of the solution it produces is guaranteed to be at most W times the optimal solution cost, where W is the weight wA* uses in prioritizing open nodes. W is therefore a suboptimality bound for the solution produced by wA*. There is broad consensus that this bound is not very accurate, that the actual suboptimality of wA*'s solution is often much less than W times optimal. However, there is very little published evidence supporting that view, and no existing explanation of why W is a poor bound. This paper fills in these gaps in the literature. We begin with a large-scale experiment demonstrating that, across a wide variety of domains and heuristics for those domains, W is indeed very often far from the true suboptimality of wA*'s solution. We then analytically identify the potential sources of error. Finally, we present a practical method for correcting for two of these sources of error and experimentally show that the correction frequently eliminates much of the error.