Planning with Semantic Attachments

Hierarchical Task Networks (HTN) generate plans using a decomposition process guided by extra domain knowledge to guide search towards a planning task. While many HTN planners can make calls to external processes (e.g. to a simulator interface) during the decomposition process, this is a computationally expensive process, so planner implementations often use such calls in an ad-hoc way using very specialized domain knowledge to limit the number of calls. Conversely, the few classical planners that are capable of using external calls (often called semantic attachments) during planning do so in much more limited ways by generating a fixed number of ground operators at problem grounding time. In this paper we develop the notion of semantic attachments for HTN planning using semi co-routines, allowing such procedurally defined predicates to link the planning process to custom unifications outside of the planner. The resulting planner can then use such co-routines as part of its backtracking mechanism to search through parallel dimensions of the statespace (e.g. through numeric variables). We show empirically that our planner outperforms the state-of-the-art numeric planners in a number of domains using minimal extra domain knowledge.

[1]  L. Dubins On Curves of Minimal Length with a Constraint on Average Curvature, and with Prescribed Initial and Terminal Positions and Tangents , 1957 .

[2]  Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.  Structured programming , 1972, A.P.I.C. Studies in data processing.

[3]  Richard W. Weyhrauch,et al.  Prolegomena to a Theory of Mechanized Formal Reasoning , 1980, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  PDDL-the planning domain definition language , 1998 .

[5]  Hector Muñoz-Avila,et al.  SHOP: Simple Hierarchical Ordered Planner , 1999, IJCAI.

[6]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  On the Compilability and Expressive Power of Propositional Planning Formalisms , 2000, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[7]  Dana Nau,et al.  A General Approach to Synthesize Problem-Specific Planners , 2003 .

[8]  Maria Fox,et al.  PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[10]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Integrating symbolic and geometric planning for mobile manipulation , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security & Rescue Robotics (SSRR 2009).

[11]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  Mobile manipulation: Encoding motion planning options using task motion multigraphs , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[12]  B. Nebel,et al.  Lazy Evaluation and Subsumption Caching for Search-Based Integrated Task and Motion Planning , 2013 .

[13]  Alexandra Kirsch,et al.  Planning in the Wild: Modeling Tools for PDDL , 2014, KI.

[14]  Robert P. Goldman,et al.  SMT-Based Nonlinear PDDL+ Planning , 2015, AAAI.

[15]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Modeling and Computation in Planning: Better Heuristics from More Expressive Languages , 2015, ICAPS.

[16]  Lavindra de Silva,et al.  On the Design of Symbolic-Geometric Online Planning Systems , 2015 .

[17]  Maria Fox,et al.  Heuristic Planning for PDDL+ Domains , 2016, AAAI Workshop: Planning for Hybrid Systems.

[18]  Patrik Haslum,et al.  Interval-Based Relaxation for General Numeric Planning , 2016, ECAI.

[19]  Hector Geffner,et al.  Purely Declarative Action Descriptions are Overrated: Classical Planning with Simulators , 2017, IJCAI.

[20]  Eyke Hüllermeier,et al.  Programmatic Task Network Planning , 2018 .