Numerical Integration and Dynamic Discretization in Heuristic Search Planning over Hybrid Domains

In this paper we look into the problem of planning over hybrid domains, where change can be both discrete and instantaneous, or continuous over time. In addition, it is required that each state on the trajectory induced by the execution of plans complies with a given set of global constraints. We approach the computation of plans for such domains as the problem of searching over a deterministic state model. In this model, some of the successor states are obtained by solving numerically the so-called initial value problem over a set of ordinary differential equations (ODE) given by the current plan prefix. These equations hold over time intervals whose duration is determined dynamically, according to whether zero crossing events take place for a set of invariant conditions. The resulting planner, FS+, incorporates these features together with effective heuristic guidance. FS+ does not impose any of the syntactic restrictions on process effects often found on the existing literature on Hybrid Planning. A key concept of our approach is that a clear separation is struck between planning and simulation time steps. The former is the time allowed to observe the evolution of a given dynamical system before committing to a future course of action, whilst the later is part of the model of the environment. FS+ is shown to be a robust planner over a diverse set of hybrid domains, taken from the existing literature on hybrid planning and systems.

[1]  E. Zermelo Über das Navigationsproblem bei ruhender oder veränderlicher Windverteilung , 1931 .

[2]  Maria Fox,et al.  Validating Plans in the Context of Processes and Exogenous Events , 2005, AAAI.

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

[4]  Maria Fox,et al.  A Compilation of the Full PDDL+ Language into SMT , 2016, ICAPS.

[5]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  An Action Language Based on Causal Explanation: Preliminary Report , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[6]  Daniel Richardson,et al.  Some undecidable problems involving elementary functions of a real variable , 1969, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[7]  Edward R. Scheinerman,et al.  Invitation to Dynamical Systems , 1995 .

[8]  P. N. Paraskevopoulos,et al.  Modern Control Engineering , 2001 .

[9]  R. Sanfelice,et al.  Hybrid dynamical systems , 2009, IEEE Control Systems.

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

[11]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  A Planning Based Framework for Controlling Hybrid Systems , 2012, ICAPS.

[12]  Patrik Haslum,et al.  Optimal Planning with Global Numerical State Constraints , 2014, ICAPS.

[13]  Drew McDermott Reasoning about Autonomous Processes in an Estimated-Regression Planner , 2003, ICAPS.

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

[15]  Alberto Olivares,et al.  Engineering Notes Hybrid Optimal Control Approach to Commercial Aircraft Trajectory Planning , 2010 .

[16]  Fangzhen Lin,et al.  State Constraints Revisited , 1994, J. Log. Comput..

[17]  Hector Geffner,et al.  ∃-STRIPS: Existential Quantification in Planning and Constraint Satisfaction , 2016, IJCAI.

[18]  Ji-Ae Shin,et al.  Processes and continuous change in a SAT-based planner , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Andrew Coles,et al.  PDDL+ Planning with Events and Linear Processes , 2014, ICAPS.

[20]  Maria Fox,et al.  Plan-based Policies for Efficient Multiple Battery Load Management , 2012, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[21]  H. Ector Geener Functional Strips: a More Flexible Language for Planning and Problem Solving , 2022 .

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

[23]  Edwin P. D. Pednault,et al.  FORMULATING MULTIAGENT, DYNAMIC-WORLD PROBLEMS IN THE CLASSICAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK , 1987 .

[24]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Programming with Constraints: An Introduction , 1998 .

[25]  Benedetto Intrigila,et al.  UPMurphi: A Tool for Universal Planning on PDDL+ Problems , 2009, ICAPS.

[26]  J. Lambert Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations , 1991 .

[27]  P. Pandurang Nayak,et al.  A Model-Based Approach to Reactive Self-Configuring Systems , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2.

[28]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Action Languages , 1998, Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell..

[29]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Semantic Attachments for Domain-Independent Planning Systems , 2009, ICAPS.

[30]  Benjamin Kuipers,et al.  Qualitative Simulation , 1986, Artificial Intelligence.

[31]  Cesare Tinelli,et al.  Satisfiability Modulo Theories , 2021, Handbook of Satisfiability.

[32]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  The Open Motion Planning Library , 2012, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[33]  J. Christopher Beck,et al.  Planning Modulo Theories: Extending the Planning Paradigm , 2012, ICAPS.

[34]  Maria Fox,et al.  VAL: automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using PDDL , 2004, 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[35]  Maria Fox,et al.  Modelling Mixed Discrete-Continuous Domains for Planning , 2006, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[36]  Derek Long,et al.  Validating plans with continuous effects , 2003 .

[37]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Constraint Propagation and Explanation over Novel Types by Abstract Compilation , 2016, ICLP.

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