maumagnaguagno / hypertension_u Goto Github PK

Hello, under what license is this project released under ? Thank-you.

I'm getting errors of the type:

hype.sh healthcare.ujshop pbhealthcare-test.ujshop
Script at  /Users/meneguzzi/Documents/workspace-planning/HyperTension_U
Axiom p parameters redefined, from ["?c", "c1", ["?t"]] to ["?c", "c2", ["?t"]]
/Users/meneguzzi/Documents/workspace-planning/HyperTension_U/UJSHOP_Parser.rb:157:in `parse_domain'
/Users/meneguzzi/Documents/workspace-planning/HyperTension_U/Hype.rb:32:in `parse'
/Users/meneguzzi/Documents/workspace-planning/HyperTension_U/Hype.rb:81:in `<main>'

But I simply cannot find where exactly in the files these errors are coming from. It's sort of urgent to sort it out.

Best,

Felipe

Both operators suspendG and reactivateG have a free variable ?g.

(:operator (!suspendG ?gi ?a ?gv)
  ( (goal ?g ?gi ?a) (not (terminalG ?g ?gi ?gv)) (not (nullG ?g ?gi ?gv)) )
  ( (activatedG ?g ?gi ?gv) )
  ( (suspendedG ?g ?gi ?gv) )
  1 
)
;...
(:operator (!reactivateG ?gi ?a ?gv)
  ( (goal ?g ?gi ?a) (suspendedG ?g ?gi ?gv) (not (terminalG ?g ?gi ?gv)) (not (nullG ?g ?gi ?gv)) )
  ( (suspendedG ?g ?gi ?gv) )
  ( (activatedG ?g ?gi ?gv) )
  1
)

Each operator is applied once by methods that already have ?g, we could propagate this value.

(:method (backBurner ?g ?gi ?gv ?c ?ci ?cv ?d ?a)
  ((goal ?g ?gi ?d) (activeG ?g ?gi ?gv) (commitment ?c ?ci ?d ?a) (pending ?c ?ci ?cv))
  ((!suspendG ?gi ?d ?gv))
)
(:method (frontBurner ?g ?gi ?gv ?c ?ci ?cv ?d ?a)
  ((goal ?g ?gi ?d) (suspendedG ?g ?gi ?gv) (commitment ?c ?ci ?d ?a) (detached ?c ?ci ?cv))
  ((!reactivateG ?gi ?d ?gv))
)

Other goal related operators already have a parameter ?g.
Is there any reason to keep ?g a free variable?

Even without the entire domain converted we have our first plan for Healthcare.
EDIT: now emulating lists, so we can see parentheses around terms.

> ruby pbhealthcare.ujshop.rb -d
----------------------Tasks-----------------------
0: hospitalScenario()
1: testCommitments()
---------------------Planning---------------------
hospitalScenario_case0()
  seekHelp_case0(alice)
    create(C1,C1,bob,alice,(nil))
    requestAssessment(alice,bob)
    processPatient_process_patient_healthy(alice)
      performImagingTests_imaging(alice)
        create(C2,C2,alice,bob,(clyde))
        create(C5,C5,clyde,bob,(doug))
        requestImaging(bob,alice,clyde)
        attendTest_attend_imaging(alice)
          performImaging(clyde,alice,bob)
          performPathologyTests_biopsy_unnecessary(alice)
            deliverDiagnostics_only_imaging(alice)
              requestRadiologyReport(bob,clyde,alice)
              sendRadiologyReport(clyde,bob,alice)
              generateTreatmentPlan(bob,alice)
              testCommitments_case0()
                testCommitment_case0(C1,C1,nil,satisfied)
                  invisible_testFailure(C1,satisfied)
                  testCommitment_case0(C2,C2,nil,satisfied)
                    invisible_testFailure(C2,satisfied)
                    testCommitment_case0(C3,C3,nil,satisfied)
                      invisible_testFailure(C3,satisfied)
                      testCommitment_case0(C4,C4,nil,satisfied)
                        invisible_testFailure(C4,satisfied)
                        testCommitment_case0(C5,C5,nil,satisfied)
                          invisible_testFailure(C5,satisfied)
                          testCommitment_case0(C6,C6,nil,satisfied)
                            invisible_testFailure(C6,satisfied)
                            testCommitment_case0(C7,C7,nil,satisfied)
                              invisible_testFailure(C7,satisfied)
                              testCommitment_case0(C8,C8,nil,satisfied)
                                invisible_testFailure(C8,satisfied)
Time: 0.04680013656616211s
Plans found: 1
----------------------Plan 1----------------------
Valuation: 0
Probability: 1
0: create(C1, C1, bob, alice, (nil))
1: requestAssessment(alice, bob)
2: create(C2, C2, alice, bob, (clyde))
3: create(C5, C5, clyde, bob, (doug))
4: requestImaging(bob, alice, clyde)
5: performImaging(clyde, alice, bob)
6: requestRadiologyReport(bob, clyde, alice)
7: sendRadiologyReport(clyde, bob, alice)
8: generateTreatmentPlan(bob, alice)

Unexpected behavior is appearing in this problem:

• Method seekHelp propagates (nil) in the original version, and is visible as the empty last term of the first action in the plan.
• Method testCommitments propagates unbounded variables cvN, as a workaround I set them to nil.

The issue is how to deal with such behavior and if it is resulting in an incorrect plan.

May I suggest you comment out lines 30,34 and 35 of Hype.rb so that it accepts files named .jshop too? It's a bit pointless to just check for filenames.

Operator requestBiopsy receives a ?pathologist instead of a ?radiologist as specified by method performPathologyTests.

(:operator (!requestBiopsy ?physician ?patient ?pathologist)
  (and (physician ?physician) (patient ?patient) (radiologist ?radiologist)) ;Pre
  () ;Del
  ((bAppointmentRequested ?patient ?radiologist) (biopsyRequested ?physician ?patient)) ;Add
  1 ; Cost
)

(:method (performPathologyTests ?patient)
  imaging-plus-biopsy
  (
    (patient ?patient) (physician ?physician)
    (radiologist ?radiologist)
    (pathologist ?pathologist)
    ;(conditional C1 ?Ci ?Cv)
    (commitment C3 ?Ci3 ?patient ?physician)
    (commitment C4 ?Ci4 ?radiologist ?physician)
  )
  (
    (!create C3 ?Ci3 ?patient ?physician (?radiologist))
    (!create C4 ?Ci4 ?radiologist ?physician (?pathologist))
    (!requestBiopsy ?physician ?patient ?radiologist) ; <= HERE
    (attendTest ?patient)
  )
)

As a feature request, I'd like for the planner to handle logic rules, as shown in the healthcare domain.

Operators manufactureGoods, sendGoods and sendPayment appear in subtasks for methods that achieve agent goals, but are not defined in the domain. The variable ?t is also not bounded by any precondition.

;; Redo from here on before testing.
(:method (achieveGoal g2 ?gi  c)
  ((activeG g2 ?gi ) (goal g2 ?gi c) )
  ((!manufactureGoods c ?t))
)
(:method (achieveGoal g3 ?gi  m)
  ((activeG g3 ?gi ) (goal g3 ?gi m))
  ((!sendGoods m c ?t))
)
(:method (achieveGoal g4 ?gi  c)
  ((activeG g4 ?gi ) (goal g4 ?gi c))
  ((!sendPayment c m ?t))
)
(:method (detach ?c ?ci )
  ((call = ?c c1) (active ?c ?ci ) (commitment ?c ?ci ?a ?d)) ;FM (2013/01/17) Changed the precondition to be more generic
  ((!sendPayment ?d ?a ?t)) ;FM Was ((!sendPayment c m ?t))
  ((call = ?c c5) (active ?c ?ci ) (commitment ?c ?ci ?a ?d)) ;FM (2013/01/17) Changed the precondition to be more generic
  ((!sendGoods ?d ?a ?t)) ; FM Was ((!sendGoods m c ?t))
)

Healthcare domain is currently deterministic and does not consider rewards and costs.

Some common mistakes can be avoided by checking the amount of terms in an axiom or attachment.

Axiom satisfied calls axiom q with 3 instead of 2 terms, which always evaluates to false.

(:- (satisfied ?c ?ci ?cv)
  (and (not (null ?c ?ci ?cv)) (not (terminal ?c ?ci ?cv)) (q ?c ?ci ?cv))
)

Axiom q is defined by one variable and one constant parameter, the version with 3 terms appear commented in other places.

(:- (q ?c C1)
  (and (commitment ?c ?ci ?d ?a) (var ?c ?ci ) (and (diagnosisProvided ?d ?a)) )
)

Method testCommitment presents the same problem for axiom p:

(:method (testCommitment ?c ?ci ?cv ?s)
  ; ...
  ((commitment ?c ?ci ?d ?a) (call = ?s p) (p ?c ?ci ?cv)) ; <= HERE
  ((!!testSuccess ?c ?ci ?cv ?s))

  ((commitment ?c ?ci ?d ?a) (call = ?s q) (q ?c ?ci))
  ((!!testSuccess ?c ?ci ?cv ?s))

  failed
  ((commitment ?c ?ci ?d ?a))
  ((!!testFailure ?c ?s))
)

Rewards are currently only triggered from false to true, and vice-versa with the use of not.
We need to expand the concept to support maintenance rewards.
To differentiate the two types new keywords (trigger|achieve, maintain) would be required, an example would be:

(:rewards
  (achieve  (not (pre 1))  1) ; Get one valuation when (pre 1) becomes false
  (maintain (not (pre 1)) 10) ; Get 10 valuation for each operation that does not change it
)

In the future the reward value could support formulas with a time variable or be limited to win such rewards a limited amount of times.

Alas, my co-authors think we should also have goals here, so we may need to get that working too.

I asked Pankaj to help me with this, let's see how long he takes to reply.

Shared preconditions can be optimized to be evaluated only once, which may require modifications in both UHyper_Compiler#compile_domain and Hypertension_U#planning.
This process can be done by:

• Only evaluating the preconditions during the first outcome evaluation
• Separating preconditions from operator application (using N + 1 methods)
• Using coroutines.

May be slower when evaluating a complex precondition before minimum probability!
See Hypertension_U#execute.

Some problems may require a different usage of rewards and attachments, currently defined in the domain file. Instead of creating a new domain for such cases the user should be able to overwrite or add to each set in the problem file.