Planning with OWL-DL Ontologies (Extended Version)
0
🤷
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The provided paper discusses additional plots and figures that were not included in the main body of the research.
- These supplementary materials provide further insights and evidence to support the claims and findings presented in the paper.
- The paper aims to give readers a comprehensive understanding of the research by including these additional visualizations and analyses.
Plain English Explanation
The research paper you provided contains additional plots and figures that were not included in the main body of the work. These supplementary materials are designed to give readers a more complete understanding of the research by providing further insights and evidence to support the claims and findings presented in the paper.
The additional plots offer a deeper dive into the data and analyses conducted by the researchers. They may include visualizations that help explain complex relationships, demonstrate the robustness of the results, or provide a more nuanced perspective on the topic. By including these extra materials, the authors strive to give the reader a comprehensive view of the research and its key takeaways.
Technical Explanation
The section on "Further Plots" presents supplementary visualizations and analyses that were not incorporated into the main body of the research paper. These additional materials are designed to provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the study and its findings.
The supplementary plots may include things like:
- Additional data visualizations that help explain complex relationships or patterns in the data
- Sensitivity analyses or robustness checks to demonstrate the reliability of the results
- Exploratory analyses that offer a more nuanced perspective on the research questions
By including these supplementary materials, the authors aim to give the reader a fuller picture of the research process, the data, and the insights generated. This can help strengthen the overall evidence and support for the claims made in the paper.
Critical Analysis
The inclusion of these "Further Plots" suggests the authors wanted to provide readers with a more complete understanding of their research. By offering these additional visualizations and analyses, they are likely trying to be as transparent as possible about their methods and findings.
However, it's important to consider whether the supplementary materials truly add significant value beyond what was already covered in the main paper. The authors should ensure these extra plots and figures are not simply repetitive or tangential, but rather offer meaningful new insights that strengthen the overall research.
Additionally, it would be helpful if the authors clearly explain the purpose and significance of each supplementary plot, rather than leaving the reader to interpret their relevance on their own. This would help the reader better understand how these materials contribute to the central claims and conclusions of the study.
Conclusion
The "Further Plots" section of this research paper provides supplementary visualizations and analyses that aim to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the study and its findings. By including these additional materials, the authors demonstrate a commitment to transparency and a desire to support their claims with robust evidence.
While these supplementary plots have the potential to add valuable insights, it's important that they are truly additive and not simply repetitive of the main paper. The authors should ensure each visualization or analysis clearly contributes to the overall story and conclusions of the research.
Overall, the inclusion of these "Further Plots" suggests the researchers want to provide the reader with a complete picture of their work, which is a commendable approach. By carefully considering the value and presentation of these supplementary materials, the authors can strengthen the impact and usefulness of their research.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤷
0
Planning with OWL-DL Ontologies (Extended Version)
Tobias John, Patrick Koopmann
We introduce ontology-mediated planning, in which planning problems are combined with an ontology. Our formalism differs from existing ones in that we focus on a strong separation of the formalisms for describing planning problems and ontologies, which are only losely coupled by an interface. Moreover, we present a black-box algorithm that supports the full expressive power of OWL DL. This goes beyond what existing approaches combining automated planning with ontologies can do, which only support limited description logics such as DL-Lite and description logics that are Horn. Our main algorithm relies on rewritings of the ontology-mediated planning specifications into PDDL, so that existing planning systems can be used to solve them. The algorithm relies on justifications, which allows for a generic approach that is independent of the expressivity of the ontology language. However, dedicated optimizations for computing justifications need to be implemented to enable an efficient rewriting procedure. We evaluated our implementation on benchmark sets from several domains. The evaluation shows that our procedure works in practice and that tailoring the reasoning procedure has significant impact on the performance.
Read more8/15/2024
🚀
0
A Planning Ontology to Represent and Exploit Planning Knowledge for Performance Efficiency
Bharath Muppasani, Vishal Pallagani, Biplav Srivastava, Raghava Mutharaju, Michael N. Huhns, Vignesh Narayanan
Ontologies are known for their ability to organize rich metadata, support the identification of novel insights via semantic queries, and promote reuse. In this paper, we consider the problem of automated planning, where the objective is to find a sequence of actions that will move an agent from an initial state of the world to a desired goal state. We hypothesize that given a large number of available planners and diverse planning domains; they carry essential information that can be leveraged to identify suitable planners and improve their performance for a domain. We use data on planning domains and planners from the International Planning Competition (IPC) to construct a planning ontology and demonstrate via experiments in two use cases that the ontology can lead to the selection of promising planners and improving their performance using macros - a form of action ordering constraints extracted from planning ontology. We also make the planning ontology and associated resources available to the community to promote further research.
Read more7/9/2024
0
NL2Plan: Robust LLM-Driven Planning from Minimal Text Descriptions
Elliot Gestrin, Marco Kuhlmann, Jendrik Seipp
Today's classical planners are powerful, but modeling input tasks in formats such as PDDL is tedious and error-prone. In contrast, planning with Large Language Models (LLMs) allows for almost any input text, but offers no guarantees on plan quality or even soundness. In an attempt to merge the best of these two approaches, some work has begun to use LLMs to automate parts of the PDDL creation process. However, these methods still require various degrees of expert input. We present NL2Plan, the first domain-agnostic offline LLM-driven planning system. NL2Plan uses an LLM to incrementally extract the necessary information from a short text prompt before creating a complete PDDL description of both the domain and the problem, which is finally solved by a classical planner. We evaluate NL2Plan on four planning domains and find that it solves 10 out of 15 tasks - a clear improvement over a plain chain-of-thought reasoning LLM approach, which only solves 2 tasks. Moreover, in two out of the five failure cases, instead of returning an invalid plan, NL2Plan reports that it failed to solve the task. In addition to using NL2Plan in end-to-end mode, users can inspect and correct all of its intermediate results, such as the PDDL representation, increasing explainability and making it an assistive tool for PDDL creation.
Read more5/8/2024
0
Leveraging Environment Interaction for Automated PDDL Generation and Planning with Large Language Models
Sadegh Mahdavi, Raquel Aoki, Keyi Tang, Yanshuai Cao
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in various natural language tasks, but they often struggle with planning problems that require structured reasoning. To address this limitation, the conversion of planning problems into the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) has been proposed as a potential solution, enabling the use of automated planners. However, generating accurate PDDL files typically demands human inputs or correction, which can be time-consuming and costly. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that leverages LLMs and environment feedback to automatically generate PDDL domain and problem description files without the need for human intervention. Our method introduces an iterative refinement process that generates multiple problem PDDL candidates and progressively refines the domain PDDL based on feedback obtained from interacting with the environment. To guide the refinement process, we develop an Exploration Walk (EW) metric, which provides rich feedback signals for LLMs to update the PDDL file. We evaluate our approach on PDDL environments. We achieve an average task solve rate of 66% compared to a 29% solve rate by GPT-4's intrinsic planning with chain-of-thought prompting. Our work enables the automated modeling of planning environments using LLMs and environment feedback, eliminating the need for human intervention in the PDDL generation process and paving the way for more reliable LLM agents in challenging problems.
Read more7/19/2024