Raising Expectations in GDA Agents Acting in Dynamic Environments

Authors: Dustin Dannenhauer, Hector Munoz-Avila

IJCAI 2015 | Conference PDF | Archive PDF | Plain Text | LLM Run Details

Reproducibility Variable Result LLM Response
Research Type Experimental An empirical validation in two variants of domains used in the GDA literature. We evaluate our GDA agent versus alternative GDA agents that either check immediate effects or check for expected states. Our experiments demonstrate improved performance of our GDA agent.
Researcher Affiliation Academia Dustin Dannenhauer and Hector Munoz-Avila Department of Computer Science and Engineering Lehigh University Bethlehem, PA 18015 USA {dtd212,hem4}@lehigh.edu
Pseudocode Yes The pseudocode for calculating informed expectations is described in Algorithm 1.
Open Source Code No No statement regarding open-source code availability or repository link found.
Open Datasets No We use two domains from GDA literature. The first domain, which we call Marsworld, is inspired from Mudworld from [Molineaux and Aha, 2014]. The second domain is a slight variant of the Arsonist domain from Paisner et al [Paisner et al., 2013].
Dataset Splits No The paper describes experimental domains but does not provide specific train/validation/test dataset splits.
Hardware Specification No No specific hardware details (e.g., CPU/GPU models, memory) used for experiments are provided.
Software Dependencies No We use HTN task decomposition as in the SHOP planner [Nau et al., 1999] and implemented in the Python version, Py Hop.
Experiment Setup Yes The following parameters were used in the Marsworld setup: the grid was 10 by 10, the probability of mud was 10%, all distances from start to destination were at least 5 tiles, and magnetic radiation clouds had a 10% probability per turn per tile to appear. The following parameters were used in the Arsonist domain: the domain contained 20 blocks, the start state had every block on the table, each goal was randomly generated where there were 3 towers each with 3 blocks, and the probability of fire was 10%.