Least-Commitment Action Selection

The principle of least commitment was embraced early in planning research. Hierarchical task networks (HTNs) reason about high-level tasks without committing to specific low-level steps. Partial-order planning arose from a complementary desire to avoid unnecessary ordering commitments. But most of today's partial-order planning algorithms commit to a single producing step when supporting an open condition — even when multiple alternatives exist. Each possibility results in a different child plan, and therefore a branch in the search tree. If the various choices have common features, computation may be duplicated unnecessarily on the various branches. The FABIAN planner attempts to avoid such waste. FABIAN separates the decision to add a step from the choice of which step to add. FABIAN supports an open condition by adding an abstract action to the plan representing the disjunction of possible new supporting steps; only later does it refine this choice to a particular concrete action. We show that this abstraction can lead to exponential savings, and argue that in the worst case FABIAN never explores more than a slightly larger space of plans than does a traditional planner such as SNLP.

[1]  Daniel S. Weld,et al.  A Domain-Independent Algorithm for Plan Adaptation , 1994, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[2]  Qiang Yang,et al.  ABTWEAK: Abstracting a Nonlinear, Least Commitment Planner , 1990, AAAI.

[3]  S. Kambhampati Characterizing multi-contributor causal structures for planning , 1992 .

[4]  Mark A. Peot,et al.  Threat-Removal Strategies for Partial-Order Planning , 1993, AAAI.

[5]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Planning as Refinement Search: A Unified Framework for Evaluating Design Tradeoffs in Partial-Order Planning , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Linkability: Examining Causal Link Commitments in Partial-order Planning , 1994, AIPS.

[7]  Martin Kramer,et al.  A Generalizing Operator Abstraction , 1994, PuK.

[8]  Steve Hanks,et al.  Flaw Selection Strategies for Value-Directed Planning , 1996, AIPS.

[9]  Tom M. Mitchell,et al.  Generalization as Search , 2002 .

[10]  Austin Tate,et al.  Interacting Goals And Their Use , 1975, IJCAI.

[11]  Steven Minton,et al.  Total Order vs. Partial Order Planning: Factors Influencing Performance , 1992, KR.

[12]  Daniel S. Weld,et al.  UCPOP: A Sound, Complete, Partial Order Planner for ADL , 1992, KR.

[13]  David Chapman,et al.  Planning for Conjunctive Goals , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Qiang Yang Downward Reenement and the Eeciency of Hierarchical Problem Solving , 1993 .

[15]  Anthony Barrett,et al.  Partial-Order Planning: Evaluating Possible Efficiency Gains , 1994, Artificial Intelligence.

[16]  Earl D. Sacerdoti,et al.  The Nonlinear Nature of Plans , 1975, IJCAI.

[17]  Steven Minton,et al.  Commitment Strategies in Planning: A Comparative Analysis , 1991, IJCAI.

[18]  Christer Bäckström,et al.  Planning with Abstraction Hierarchies can be Exponentially Less Efficient , 1995, IJCAI.

[19]  Qiang Yang,et al.  Downward Refinement and the Efficiency of Hierarchical Problem Solving , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  An analysis of ABSTRIPS , 1992 .

[21]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[22]  Mark Stefik,et al.  Planning with Constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1) , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[23]  David A. McAllester,et al.  Systematic Nonlinear Planning , 1991, AAAI.

[24]  Craig A. Knoblock Automatically generating abstractions for problem solving , 1991 .

[25]  Earl D. Sacerdoti,et al.  Planning in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces , 1974, IJCAI.