Showing 1–6 of 6 results for author: Liberman, A O

Learning First-Order Symbolic Planning Representations That Are Grounded

Authors: Andrés Occhipinti Liberman, Blai Bonet, Hector Geffner

Abstract: Two main approaches have been developed for learning first-order planning (action) models from unstructured data: combinatorial approaches that yield crisp action schemas from the structure of the state space, and deep learning approaches that produce action schemas from states represented by images. A benefit of the former approach is that the learned action schemas are similar to those that can… ▽ More Two main approaches have been developed for learning first-order planning (action) models from unstructured data: combinatorial approaches that yield crisp action schemas from the structure of the state space, and deep learning approaches that produce action schemas from states represented by images. A benefit of the former approach is that the learned action schemas are similar to those that can be written by hand; a benefit of the latter is that the learned representations (predicates) are grounded on the images, and as a result, new instances can be given in terms of images. In this work, we develop a new formulation for learning crisp first-order planning models that are grounded on parsed images, a step to combine the benefits of the two approaches. Parsed images are assumed to be given in a simple O2D language (objects in 2D) that involves a small number of unary and binary predicates like "left", "above", "shape", etc. After learning, new planning instances can be given in terms of pairs of parsed images, one for the initial situation and the other for the goal. Learning and planning experiments are reported for several domains including Blocks, Sokoban, IPC Grid, and Hanoi. △ Less

Submitted 30 April, 2022; v1 submitted 25 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Learning to Act and Observe in Partially Observable Domains

Authors: Thomas Bolander, Nina Gierasimczuk, Andrés Occhipinti Liberman

Abstract: We consider a learning agent in a partially observable environment, with which the agent has never interacted before, and about which it learns both what it can observe and how its actions affect the environment. The agent can learn about this domain from experience gathered by taking actions in the domain and observing their results. We present learning algorithms capable of learning as much as p… ▽ More We consider a learning agent in a partially observable environment, with which the agent has never interacted before, and about which it learns both what it can observe and how its actions affect the environment. The agent can learn about this domain from experience gathered by taking actions in the domain and observing their results. We present learning algorithms capable of learning as much as possible (in a well-defined sense) both about what is directly observable and about what actions do in the domain, given the learner's observational constraints. We differentiate the level of domain knowledge attained by each algorithm, and characterize the type of observations required to reach it. The algorithms use dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) to represent the learned domain information symbolically. Our work continues that of Bolander and Gierasimczuk (2015), which developed DEL-based learning algorithms based to learn domain information in fully observable domains. △ Less

Submitted 13 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

Dynamic Term-Modal Logic for Epistemic Social Network Dynamics (Extended Version)

Authors: Andrés Occhipinti Liberman, Rasmus K. Rendsvig

Abstract: Logics for social networks have been studied in recent literature. This paper presents a framework based on *dynamic term-modal logic* (DTML), a quantified variant of dynamic epistemic logic (DEL). In contrast with DEL where it is commonly known to whom agent names refer, DTML can represent dynamics with uncertainty about agent identity. We exemplify dynamics where such uncertainty and de re/de di… ▽ More Logics for social networks have been studied in recent literature. This paper presents a framework based on *dynamic term-modal logic* (DTML), a quantified variant of dynamic epistemic logic (DEL). In contrast with DEL where it is commonly known to whom agent names refer, DTML can represent dynamics with uncertainty about agent identity. We exemplify dynamics where such uncertainty and de re/de dicto distinctions are key to social network epistemics. Technically, we show that DTML semantics can represent a popular class of hybrid logic epistemic social network models. We also show that DTML can encode previously discussed dynamics for which finding a complete logic was left open. As complete reduction axioms systems exist for DTML, this yields a complete system for the dynamics in question. △ Less

Submitted 26 August, 2019; originally announced August 2019.

Dynamic Term-Modal Logics for First-Order Epistemic Planning

Authors: Andrés Occhipinti Liberman, Andreas Achen, Rasmus Kræmmer Rendsvig

Abstract: Many classical planning frameworks are built on first-order languages. The first-order expressive power is desirable for compactly representing actions via schemas, and for specifying quantified conditions such as $\neg\exists x\mathsf{blocks\_door}(x)$. In contrast, several recent epistemic planning frameworks are built on propositional epistemic logic. The epistemic language is useful to describ… ▽ More Many classical planning frameworks are built on first-order languages. The first-order expressive power is desirable for compactly representing actions via schemas, and for specifying quantified conditions such as $\neg\exists x\mathsf{blocks\_door}(x)$. In contrast, several recent epistemic planning frameworks are built on propositional epistemic logic. The epistemic language is useful to describe planning problems involving higher-order reasoning or epistemic goals such as $K_{a}\neg\mathsf{problem}$. This paper develops a first-order version of Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL). In this framework, for example, $\exists xK_{x}\exists y\mathsf{blocks\_door}(y)$ is a formula. The formalism combines the strengths of DEL (higher-order reasoning) with those of first-order logic (lifted representation) to model multi-agent epistemic planning. The paper introduces an epistemic language with a possible-worlds semantics, followed by novel dynamics given by first-order action models and their execution via product updates. Taking advantage of the first-order machinery, epistemic action schemas are defined to provide compact, problem-independent domain descriptions, in the spirit of PDDL. Concerning metatheory, the paper defines axiomatic normal term-modal logics, shows a Canonical Model Theorem-like result which allows establishing completeness through frame characterization formulas, shows decidability for the finite agent case, and shows a general completeness result for the dynamic extension by reduction axioms. △ Less

Submitted 2 June, 2020; v1 submitted 14 June, 2019; originally announced June 2019.

Evidence Logics with Relational Evidence

Authors: Alexandru Baltag, Andrés Occhipinti Liberman

Abstract: Dynamic evidence logics are logics for reasoning about the evidence and evidence-based beliefs of agents in a dynamic environment. In this paper, we introduce a family of logics for reasoning about relational evidence: evidence that involves an orderings of states in terms of their relative plausibility. We provide sound and complete axiomatizations for the logics. We also present several evidenti… ▽ More Dynamic evidence logics are logics for reasoning about the evidence and evidence-based beliefs of agents in a dynamic environment. In this paper, we introduce a family of logics for reasoning about relational evidence: evidence that involves an orderings of states in terms of their relative plausibility. We provide sound and complete axiomatizations for the logics. We also present several evidential actions and prove soundness and completeness for the associated dynamic logics. △ Less

Submitted 19 June, 2017; originally announced June 2017.

Does telling white lies signal pro-social preferences?

Authors: Laura Biziou-van-Pol, Jana Haenen, Arianna Novaro, Andrés Occhipinti Liberman, Valerio Capraro

Abstract: The opportunity to tell a white lie (i.e., a lie that benefits another person) generates a moral conflict between two opposite moral dictates, one pushing towards telling always the truth and the other pushing towards helping others. Here we study how people resolve this moral conflict. What does telling a white lie signal about a person's pro-social tendencies? To answer this question, we conduct… ▽ More The opportunity to tell a white lie (i.e., a lie that benefits another person) generates a moral conflict between two opposite moral dictates, one pushing towards telling always the truth and the other pushing towards helping others. Here we study how people resolve this moral conflict. What does telling a white lie signal about a person's pro-social tendencies? To answer this question, we conducted a two-stage 2x2 experiment. In the first stage, we used a Deception Game to measure aversion to telling a Pareto white lie (i.e., a lie that helps both the liar and the listener), and aversion to telling an altruistic white lie (i.e., a lie that helps the listener at the expense of the liar). In the second stage we measured altruistic tendencies using a Dictator Game and cooperative tendencies using a Prisoner's dilemma. We found three major results: (i) both altruism and cooperation are positively correlated with aversion to telling a Pareto white lie; (ii) both altruism and cooperation are negatively correlated with aversion to telling an altruistic white lie; (iii) men are more likely than women to tell an altruistic white lie, but not to tell a Pareto white lie. Our results shed light on the moral conflit between pro-sociality and truth-telling. In particular, the first finding suggests that a significant proportion of people have non-distributional notions of what the right thing to do is: irrespective of their economic consequences, they tell the truth, they cooperate, they share their money. △ Less

Submitted 10 October, 2015; v1 submitted 12 June, 2015; originally announced June 2015.

Comments: Forthcoming in Judgment and Decision Making