BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alberto Pozanco

Alberto Pozanco contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Counterfactual Reasoning in Automated Planning

Automated planning traditionally assumes that all aspects of a planning task (initial state, goals, and available actions) are fully specified in advance, an approach well-suited to domains with fixed rules and deterministic execution. However, real-world planning often requires flexibility, allowing for deviations from the original task parameters in response to unforeseen circumstances or to improve outcomes. This paper surveys existing works on counterfactual reasoning in automated planning, categorizing them by what elements are changed, when the reasoning is triggered, and why and how these changes are made. We conclude by discussing key findings and outlining open research questions to guide future work in this area.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Anticipatory Counterplanning

In competitive environments, commonly agents try to prevent opponents from achieving their goals. Most previous preventing approaches assume the opponent's goal is known a priori. Others only start executing actions once the opponent's goal has been inferred. In this work we introduce a novel domain-independent algorithm called Anticipatory Counterplanning. It combines inference of opponent's goals with computation of planning centroids to yield proactive counter strategies in problems where the opponent's goal is unknown. Experimental results show how this novel technique outperforms reactive counterplanning, increasing the chances of stopping the opponent from achieving its goals.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Explaining Preference-driven Schedules: the EXPRES Framework

Scheduling is the task of assigning a set of scarce resources distributed over time to a set of agents, who typically have preferences about the assignments they would like to get. Due to the constrained nature of these problems, satisfying all agents' preferences is often infeasible, which might lead to some agents not being happy with the resulting schedule. Providing explanations has been shown to increase satisfaction and trust in solutions produced by AI tools. However, it is particularly challenging to explain solutions that are influenced by and impact on multiple agents. In this paper we introduce the EXPRES framework, which can explain why a given preference was unsatisfied in a given optimal schedule. The EXPRES framework consists of: (i) an explanation generator that, based on a Mixed-Integer Linear Programming model, finds the best set of reasons that can explain an unsatisfied preference; and (ii) an explanation parser, which translates the generated explanations into human interpretable ones. Through simulations, we show that the explanation generator can efficiently scale to large instances. Finally, through a set of user studies within J.P. Morgan, we show that employees preferred the explanations generated by EXPRES over human-generated ones when considering workforce scheduling scenarios.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Multi-tier Automated Planning for Adaptive Behavior (Extended Version)

A planning domain, as any model, is never complete and inevitably makes assumptions on the environment's dynamic. By allowing the specification of just one domain model, the knowledge engineer is only able to make one set of assumptions, and to specify a single objective-goal. Borrowing from work in Software Engineering, we propose a multi-tier framework for planning that allows the specification of different sets of assumptions, and of different corresponding objectives. The framework aims to support the synthesis of adaptive behavior so as to mitigate the intrinsic risk in any planning modeling task. After defining the multi-tier planning task and its solution concept, we show how to solve problem instances by a succinct compilation to a form of non-deterministic planning. In doing so, our technique justifies the applicability of planning with both fair and unfair actions, and the need for more efforts in developing planning systems supporting dual fairness assumptions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access