Planning as satisfiability with IPC simple preferences and action costs

Planning as Satisfiability SAT is currently the best approach for optimally wrt makespan solving classical planning problems and the extension of this framework to include preferences is nowadays considered the reference approach to compute “optimal” plans in SAT-based planning. It includes reasoning about soft goals and plans length as introduced in the 2006 and 2008 editions of the International Planning Competitions IPCs. Despite the fact that the planning as satisfiability with preferences framework has helped to enhance the applicability of the SAT-based approach in planning, the actual approach used within the framework somehow suffers from some main limitations: the metrics, i.e. linear optimization functions defined over goals and/or actions, which account for plan quality issues, are fully reduced to SAT formulas, further increasing the size of often already big formulas; moreover, the search for optimal solutions is performed by forcing a heuristic ordering.In this paper we address these issues by reducing the IPC planning problems with soft goals from IPC-5 and/or action costs from IPC-6 to optimization problems extending SAT and that can naturally handle the integer “weights” of the metrics, i.e. to Max-SAT and Pseudo-Boolean PB problems. Our idea is partially motivated by the approach followed by IPPLAN in the deterministic part of the IPC-5 and by the recent availability of efficient Max-SAT and PB solvers. First, we prove that our approach is correct; then, we implement these ideas in SATPLAN and run a wide experimental analysis on planning problems from IPC-5 and IPC-6, taking as references state-of-the-art planners on these competitions and the previous SAT-based approach. Our analysis shows that our approach is competitive and helps to further widen the set of benchmarks that a SAT-based framework can efficiently deal with. At the same time, as a side effect of this analysis, challenging Max-SAT and PB benchmarks have been identified, as well as the Max-SAT and PB solvers performing best on these planning problems.

[1]  David G. Mitchell,et al.  A SAT Solver Primer , 2005, Bull. EATCS.

[2]  Jörg Hoffmann,et al.  The Metric-FF Planning System: Translating ''Ignoring Delete Lists'' to Numeric State Variables , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[3]  Vasco M. Manquinho,et al.  The First Evaluation of Pseudo-Boolean Solvers (PB'05) , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[4]  Yixin Chen,et al.  A Novel Transition Based Encoding Scheme for Planning as Satisfiability , 2010, AAAI.

[5]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  Solving Optimization Problems with DLL , 2006, ECAI.

[6]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  Introducing Preferences in Planning as Satisfiability , 2011, J. Log. Comput..

[7]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Loosely Coupled Formulations for Automated Planning: An Integer Programming Perspective , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[8]  Stefan Edelkamp,et al.  Optimal Symbolic Planning with Action Costs and Preferences , 2009, IJCAI.

[9]  Olivier Bailleux,et al.  Efficient CNF Encoding of Boolean Cardinality Constraints , 2003, CP.

[10]  B. Wah,et al.  New Features in SGPlan for Handling Preferences and Constraints in PDDL3.0∗ , 2006 .

[11]  Yixin Chen,et al.  Optimal STRIPS Planning by Maximum Satisfiability and Accumulative Learning , 2006, ICAPS.

[12]  Bart Selman,et al.  Planning as Satisfiability , 1992, ECAI.

[13]  Joost P. Warners,et al.  A Linear-Time Transformation of Linear Inequalities into Conjunctive Normal Form , 1998, Inf. Process. Lett..

[14]  Patrik Haslum,et al.  Deterministic planning in the fifth international planning competition: PDDL3 and experimental evaluation of the planners , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  CP-nets: A Tool for Representing and Reasoning withConditional Ceteris Paribus Preference Statements , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[16]  Abdul Sattar,et al.  SAT-Based Parallel Planning Using a Split Representation of Actions , 2009, ICAPS.

[17]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Planning as satisfiability: parallel plans and algorithms for plan search , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Ivan Serina,et al.  LPG: A Planner Based on Local Search for Planning Graphs with Action Costs , 2002, AIPS.

[19]  Ivan Serina,et al.  An approach to efficient planning with numerical fluents and multi-criteria plan quality , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  Satisfiability Planning with Constraints on the Number of Actions , 2005, ICAPS.

[21]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Artificial Intelligence , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[22]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  Combining the Expressivity of UCPOP with the Efficiency of Graphplan , 1997, ECP.

[23]  S. Kambhampati,et al.  Optiplan: Unifying IP-based and Graph-based Planning , 2005, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[24]  Vasco M. Manquinho,et al.  On Using Cutting Planes in Pseudo-Boolean Optimization , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[25]  Paul B. Jackson,et al.  Clause Form Conversions for Boolean Circuits , 2004, SAT (Selected Papers.

[26]  Kaile Su,et al.  Within-problem Learning for Efficient Lower Bound Computation in Max-SAT Solving , 2008, AAAI.

[27]  Joao Marques-Silva,et al.  Algorithms for Maximum Satisfiability using Unsatisfiable Cores , 2008, 2008 Design, Automation and Test in Europe.

[28]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  A Pseudo-Boolean approach for solving planning problems with IPC simple preferences , 2010 .

[29]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  Planning as Satisfiability with Preferences , 2007, AAAI.

[30]  Yixin Chen,et al.  Long-Distance Mutual Exclusion for Propositional Planning , 2007, IJCAI.

[31]  Bart Selman,et al.  Unifying SAT-based and Graph-based Planning , 1999, IJCAI.

[32]  Kaile Su,et al.  Exploiting Inference Rules to Compute Lower Bounds for MAX-SAT Solving , 2007, IJCAI.

[33]  Albert Oliveras,et al.  MiniMaxSat: A New Weighted Max-SAT Solver , 2007, SAT.

[34]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Unrestricted vs restricted cut in a tableau method for Boolean circuits , 2005, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[35]  S. Edelkamp,et al.  The Deterministic Part of IPC-4: An Overview , 2005, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[36]  Vasco M. Manquinho,et al.  Towards More Effective Unsatisfiability-Based Maximum Satisfiability Algorithms , 2008, SAT.

[37]  David A. Plaisted,et al.  A Structure-Preserving Clause Form Translation , 1986, J. Symb. Comput..

[38]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Soft Goals Can Be Compiled Away , 2009, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[39]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Structural Relaxations by Variable Renaming and Their Compilation for Solving MinCostSAT , 2007, CP.

[40]  Yixin Chen,et al.  Long-distance mutual exclusion for planning , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[41]  Ivan Serina,et al.  Planning Through Stochastic Local Search and Temporal Action Graphs in LPG , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[42]  Karem A. Sakallah,et al.  Pueblo: a modern pseudo-Boolean SAT solver , 2005, Design, Automation and Test in Europe.

[43]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Planning as constraint satisfaction: Solving the planning graph by compiling it into CSP , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[44]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  The FF Planning System: Fast Plan Generation Through Heuristic Search , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[45]  Richard Fikes,et al.  STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving , 1971, IJCAI.

[46]  Vasco M. Manquinho,et al.  Algorithms for Weighted Boolean Optimization , 2009, SAT.

[47]  Albert Oliveras,et al.  MiniMaxSAT: An Efficient Weighted Max-SAT solver , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[48]  Thorsten Koch,et al.  Constraint Integer Programming: A New Approach to Integrate CP and MIP , 2008, CPAIOR.

[49]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  Translating Pseudo-Boolean Constraints into SAT , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[50]  Drew McDermott,et al.  The 1998 AI Planning Systems Competition , 2000, AI Mag..

[51]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  Planning with Goal Preferences and Constraints , 2005, ICAPS.

[52]  Felip Manyà,et al.  Exploiting Cycle Structures in Max-SAT , 2009, SAT.

[53]  Yixin Chen,et al.  Constraint Partitioning for Solving Planning Problems with Trajectory Constraints and Goal Preferences , 2007, IJCAI.