reminder: papers on the competing planners in the IPC-6

[Min...@parc.com]

Dear all,

 

Just a friendly reminder that we would like to receive a short paper on every competing planner. The current deadline listed on the IPC-6 deadline is Apr 30. However, we know that it overlaps with the ICAPS paper submission deadline so we are willing to accept late submissions (up to 2 weeks).

 

The papers should be formatted using AAAI paper template (http://www.aaai.org/Publications/Templates/AuthorKit.zip) and is within 4-page limit. Please send the PDF file to any of the three organizer of the deterministic track. There will be no formal reviewing process but we, the organizers, will likely provide some feedbacks. The final version of the paper will be accessible from the competition website.

 

Regards,

Minh

 

 

[Malte Helmert]

On Apr 20, 11:19 am, <Minh...@parc.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Just a friendly reminder that we would like to receive a short paper on every competing planner. The current
> deadline listed on the IPC-6 deadline is Apr 30. However, we know that it overlaps with the ICAPS paper
> submission deadline so we are willing to accept late submissions (up to 2 weeks).

The extended deadline has passed now, but there are eleven teams from
which we haven't heard. Please contact us as soon as possible,
preferably with your planner description ready. If we don't get news
from you by Monday, we'll assume that you have dropped out of the
competition.

In related news, several people have asked us whether there will be an
opportunity to revise planner papers to reflect last-minute
developments. Yes, there will be an opportunity for revision. We will
give the papers a (very light) review and send you our feedback, and
you will have some time to incorporate any suggestions and update the
paper to reflect final changes to the system.

In unrelated news, we've added another example domain to the
benchmarks on http://ipc.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/HomePage, namely
(ten variants of) Zenotravel. The domain is supposed to more fully
exercise the new ":action-costs" feature as described on the
competition website. For the sequential and net benefit tracks, we
also provide fully grounded inputs for this domain, both in the object
fluents and in the traditional STRIPS flavour. (Fully grounded
representations cannot be provided in the temporal track, where
durations may depend on current values of numeric state variables.)
Every planner should be able to deal with at least one formulation of
this domain. As always, don't hesitate to ask if there are questions,
and please tell us if you find any bugs.

Best regards,

Malte

[Silvia Richter]

Hi,

there's a small mistake in the latest example problems: in the
sequential, propositional version of satellite, in pfile9, the goal
should not contain the expression "(= (total-cost) 0)".

Cheers,
Silvia

[Malte Helmert]

Fixed, thanks!

Malte