1. Groupe de Recherche en Informatique Université du Québec à Chicoutimi A Logical Approach to ADL Recognition for Alzheimer’s patients ICOST 2006 Bruno Bouchard, Abdenour Bouzouane, Sylvain Giroux Laboratoire DOMUS Université de Sherbrooke

2. Plan 2.Related Works 3.Lattice Recognition Model 4. Smart Home Validation 1.Cognitive Assistance Context 5.Conclusion and Future Work CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006

3. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Cognitive assistance Predict the patient’s behaviour Identify opportunities for assistance Activities of Daily Living Recognition Activities of Daily Living Recognition

4. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Difficulties in recognition Patient’s symptoms may lead to incoherent behaviour Patient’s symptoms may lead to incoherent behaviour Observations are not necessarily related Observations are not necessarily related (Kautz, 1991)

5. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Logical approaches to plan recognition Logical approaches to plan recognition (Kautz, 1991) First-order logic & Circumscription theory Situations theory Disadvantages Disadvantages Assume the rationality of the observed agent All possible plans are considered equiprobable Related Works (Wobke, 2002)

6. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Markovian model Bayesian networks (Boger et al., 2002) (Albrecht et al., 1998) Related Works (Patterson et al., 2003) (Bauchet et al., 2005) Probabilistic and Learning methods Probabilistic and Learning methods Disadvantages Disadvantages Highly dependent on the application context Might lead to learn inconsistent patterns Need a large amount of training data.

7. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 = Set of basic actions = Sequence operator = Subsumption relation of plans = Composition operation = Disunification operation = Lattice upper bound operation = Lattice lower bound operation Lattice recognition model based on Action Description Logic Algebraic tools structuring the recognition process

8. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Possible plans = Plan library = Set of observed actions A plan  is a possible plan for an observed action a(o) if a  and thus: The patient’s intention can go beyond the possible plans set The patient’s intention can go beyond the possible plans set

9. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Disunification operation DisU is an injective application  X x   X i s a intention schema if there exist a substitution such that is a plausible plan. Intention schema Intention schema x characterizes the uncertainty of the prediction

10. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Composition operation A composition  is a set of new plans that are not pre-established satisfying the consistency properties Substitution domain Substitution domain The substitution domain Sub(x) of a variable x   X is a subset Sub(x)     A substitution s is an application s : X ® 2 A, represented by a set of variable-actions pairs: s  { x ¬ a 1, y ¬ a 2  o a 3,…}, where a 1  Sub(x) and a 2 o a 3  Sub(y). Substitution process Substitution process

11. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Recognition space The set of plausible plans ordered by the subsumption relation forms a lattice structure We have   if there is a substitution s  { x ¬ a i, y ¬ b j, …} such that  i  [ 1, |  | ], ( a i  b i )  X  s  a i  s  b i  where  |  | is the cardinality of  = = The upper bound  is the most specific common partial plan subsumer  c r … c 1 , such that  i  1, r  with k  r  min ( n, m )  o j  [ 1, k ],  a i, b i   X  then c j ( o j ), o j  O, a i c i and b i c i. =

12. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Smart Home Validation

13. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 First results Simulation of real case scenarios Behavioural recognition accuracy of 47% (Baum et al., 1993)

14. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Conclusion and future work Our formal framework Our formal framework Structure the recognition process Minimize the uncertainty in the predictions Future work Future work Use contextual information and the patient's profile to attribute a probability to plans

15. CAN-AI’06, Québec, Canada, 2006 Thank you for your attention! Questions? You want to know more… http://domus.usherbrooke.ca http://domus.usherbrooke.ca

16. (Albrecht et al., 1998) Albrecht D.W., Zukerman I., Nicholson A.: Bayesian Models for Keyhole Plan Recognition in an Adventure Game, User Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction, Vol. 8., (1998), 5- 47. (Bauchet et al., 2005) Bauchet J., Mayers A.: Modelisation of ADL in its Environment for Cognitive Assistance, In: Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Smart homes and health Telematics, ICOST'05, Sherbrooke, Canada, (2005), 3-10. (Baader et al., 2003) Baader F., Calvanese D., McGuiness D., Nardi D. et Patel-Schneider P.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, (2003). (Boger et al., 2005) Boger J., Poupart P., Hoey J., Boutilier C., Fernie G. and Mihailidis A.: A Decision-Theoretic Approach to Task Assistance for Persons with Dementia. In Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'05), pages 1293-1299, Edinburgh, Scotland, (2005). (Kautz, 1991) Kautz H.: A Formal Theory of Plan Recognition and its Implementation, Reasoning About Plans, Allen J., Pelavin R. and Tenenberg J. eds., Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, C.A., (1991), 69-125. (Patterson et al., 2003) Patterson D., Liao L., Fox D., Kautz H: Inferring High-Level Behavior from Low-Level Sensors. In Dey, A. Schmidt A. and McCarthy J. F., eds., Proc. of UBICOMP'03: The 5th Int. Conf. On Ubiquitous Computing, volume LNCS 2864, (2003) 73–89. Springer-Verlag. (Wobke, 2002) Wobke W.: Two Logical Theories of Plan Recognition, Journal of Logic Computation, Vol. 12 (3), (2002), 371-412. References