[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
article

Long-distance mutual exclusion for planning

Published: 01 February 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Mutual exclusion (mutex) is a powerful mechanism for search space pruning in planning. However, a serious limitation of mutex is that it cannot specify constraints relating actions and facts across different time steps. In this paper, we propose a new class of mutual exclusions that significantly generalizes mutex and can be efficiently computed. The proposed long-distance mutual exclusion (londex) can capture constraints over actions and facts not only at the same time step but also across multiple steps. As a generalization, londex is much stronger than mutex, and provides a general and effective tool for developing efficient planners. We propose two levels of londex. The first level, londex"1, is derived from individual domain transition graphs (DTGs), and the second level, londex"m, is derived from multiple DTGs by taking into account the interactions among them. Londex constraints provide stronger pruning power but also require a large amount of memory. To address the memory problem, we further develop a virtual realization mechanism in which only a small proportion of londex constraints are dynamically generated as needed during the search. This scheme can save a huge amount of memory without sacrificing the pruning power of londex. For evaluation purposes, we incorporate londex into SATPlan04 and SATPlan06, two efficient SAT-based planners. Our experimental results show that londex"m can significantly improve over londex"1 since the former exploits causal dependencies among DTGs. Our experimental results for various planning domains also show significant advantages of using londex constraints for reducing planning time.

References

[1]
Bäckström, C. and Nebel, B., Complexity results for SAS+ planning. Computational Intelligence. v11. 17-29.
[2]
Blum, A. and Furst, M.L., Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence. v90. 281-300.
[3]
Bonet, B. and Geffner, H., Planning as heuristic search. Artificial Intelligence. v129 i1. 5-33.
[4]
M. Büttner, J. Rintanen, Satisfiability planning with constraints on the number of actions, in: Proc. ICAPS, 2005, pp. 292--299
[5]
Y. Chen, X. Zhao, W. Zhang, Long distance mutual exclusion for propositional planning, in: Proc. IJCAI, 2007, pp. 1840--1845
[6]
N. Een, N. Sörensson, An extensible SAT-solver, in: Proc. SAT, 2003
[7]
Fox, M. and Long, D., The automatic inference of state invariants in TIM. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. v9. 367-421.
[8]
M. Fox, D. Long, Utilizing automatically inferred invariants in graph construction and search, in: Proc. ICAPS, 2000, pp. 102--111
[9]
Fox, M. and Long, D., PDDL2.1: An extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. v20. 61-124.
[10]
Gerevini, A., Saetti, A. and Serina, I., Planning through stochastic local search and temporal action graphs in LPG. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. v20. 239-290.
[11]
A. Gerevini, L.K. Schubert, Inferring state constraints for domain independent planning, in: Proc. AAAI, 1998, pp. 905--912
[12]
T.J. Grant, Inductive learning of knowledge-based planning operators, PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Limburg de Maastricht, 1996
[13]
P. Haslum, H. Geffner, Admissible heuristics for optimal planning, in: Proc. ICAPS, 2000, pp. 140--149
[14]
Helmert, M., The Fast Downward planning system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. v26. 191-246.
[15]
Jonsson, P. and Bäckström, C., State-variable planning under structural restrictions: Algorithms and complexity. Artificial Intelligence. v100 i1--2. 125-176.
[16]
H. Kautz, SATPLAN04: Planning as satisfiability, in: Proc. IPC4, ICAPS, 2004
[17]
H. Kautz, SatPlan: Planning as satisfiability, in: Proc. IPC5, ICAPS, 2006
[18]
H. Kautz, D. McAllester, B. Selman, Encoding plans in propositional logic, in: Proc. KR, 1996, pp. 374--384
[19]
Kautz, H. and Selman, B., Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In: Proc. AAAI, AAAI Press. pp. 1194-1201.
[20]
H. Kautz B. Selman, The role of domain-specific knowledge in the planning as satisfiability framework, in: Proc. AIPS, 1998, pp. 181--189
[21]
H. Kautz, B. Selman, Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning, in: Proc. IJCAI, 1999, pp. 318--325
[22]
G. Kelleher, A.G. Cohn, Automatically synthesising domain constraints from operator descriptions, in: Proc. ECAI, 1992
[23]
McCluskey, T.L. and Porteous, J.M., Engineering and compiling planning domain models to promote validity and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence. v95. 1-65.
[24]
D. McDermott, M. Ghallab, A. Howe, C. Knoblock, A. Ram, M. Veloso, D. Weld, D. Wilkins, PDDL: the planning domain definition language, Technical Report TR-98-003, Yale University, 1998
[25]
P. Morris, R. Feldman, Automatically derived heuristics for planning search, in: Proc. Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, 1989
[26]
J. Penberthy, D. Weld, Temporal planning with continuous change, in: Proc. AAAI, 1994, pp. 1010--1015
[27]
J. Rintanen, Planning: algorithms and complexity, Habilitation thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg, 2005
[28]
Rintanen, J., Heljanko, K. and Niemelä, I., Planning as satisfiability: Parallel plans and algorithms for plan search. Artificial Intelligence. v12--13. 1031-1080.
[29]
B. Selman, H. Kautz, Planning as satisfiability, in: Proc. ECAI, 1992, pp. 359--363
[30]
The Fifth International Planning Competition, http://zeus.ing.unibs.it/ipc-5/, 2006
[31]
The Third International Planning Competition, http://planning.cis.strath.ac.uk/competition/, 2002
[32]
CPlan: A constraint programming approach to planning. In: Proc. AAAI, AAAI Press. pp. 585-590.
[33]
M. van den Briel, S. Kambhampati, T. Vossen, IPPlan: Planning as integer programming, in: Proc. IPC5, ICAPS, 2006
[34]
V. Vidal, H. Geffner, CPT: An optimal temporal POCL planner based on constraint programming, in: Proc. IPC4, ICAPS, 2004
[35]
Vidal, V. and Geffner, H., Branching and pruning: An optimal temporal POCL planner based on constraint programming. Artificial Intelligence. v170 i3. 298-335.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence  Volume 173, Issue 2
February, 2009
217 pages

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 01 February 2009

Author Tags

  1. Constraint propagation
  2. Mutual exclusion
  3. Planning
  4. Satisfiability

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Discovering state constraints for planning with conditional effects in Discoplan (part I)Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s10472-019-09618-w88:5-6(641-686)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2019
  • (2012)Planning as satisfiability with IPC simple preferences and action costsAI Communications10.5555/2594622.259462825:4(343-360)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2012
  • (2012)SAS+ planning as satisfiabilityJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research10.5555/2387915.238792343:1(293-328)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2012
  • (2012)On the utility of landmarks in SAT based planningKnowledge-Based Systems10.1016/j.knosys.2012.06.01136(146-154)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2012
  • (2010)Constraint propagation in propositional planningProceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling10.5555/3037334.3037355(153-160)Online publication date: 12-May-2010
  • (2009)Friends or foes? on planning as satisfiability and abstract CNF encodingsJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research10.5555/1734953.173496336:1(415-469)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2009

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media