Venue: ICAPS 2022 Workshop HSDIP

Reviews:

final_score: rating: Accept
review_content: The paper focuses on a problem of planning under time pressure where the agent is executing plan while the planner tries to find the best (continuation of that) plan. In this case, the problem with action costs is considered.

Since I'm not expert in this area, I cannot fully assess the technical contribution, but the paper seems to be technical sound (to the degree I'm able to assess it). On a high-level, I didn't have problem understanding the concept and the achieved results. Topicaly, the paper fits HSDIP.
review_title: Concurrent planning and execution with action costs

final_score: rating: Accept
review_content: The authors present a new approach to solve situated temporal planning tasks (planning tasks where the time to plan may exceed the deadlines of some actions). Previous work just maximized the chance of reaching the goal. Instead a new model is proposed which incorporates a trade off between the chance of succeeding and the cost of the executed actions and many theorems for special cases are proven.

I am certainly lacking background for an in depth review. I regularly had difficulties following you. Nevertheless, the contribution appears interesting and might kick off some interesting discussions. The plenty of examples were helpful.
- Why are all process invalidated when the remainder $\beta_i$ is executed? Because you execute the complete remainder?
- Section 4: "Unfortunately, that is not the case". You mean that the optimal policy is not linear, do you? (It could also refer to "this would simplify solution algorithms").
- Section 6: I am wondering how diverse the set of processes is that you start with. E.g. for n = 2, the difference is only whether tile A or tile B was moved onto the initial blank position. Similar small will be the changes for the other `n`. If the starting state of the processes are quite similar, is it likely that they produce similar plans?
- Figure 1-5: Those figures contain many algorithms which I have difficulties to match to the presented ones. It might be helpful to explain in the experimental section shortly which ones you ran and with which parameters. 

Other suggestions:
- if you want to provide an example citation, I suggest to define the following command:
  egcite: \newcommand{\egcite}[1]{\citep[\eg{},][]{#1}}
- if you want to provide multiple citations at once, you can just chain them together in one command:
  \cite{bibkey1, bibkey2}, instead of using two commands within an additional parenthesis.
- References
  - Cashmore et al 2018b: 
    - long form of conference (abbreviation used almost everywhere else)
    - pages missing
  - Ruml 2020a:
    - long form + abbreviation of conference used)

review_title: Situated Temporal Planning with a Success/Cost Trade-off

Decision: Accept