SAT-Based Parallel Planning Using a Split Representation of Actions

Planning based on propositional SAT(isfiability) is a powerful approach to computing step-optimal plans given a parallel execution semantics. In this setting: (i) a solution plan must be minimal in the number of plan steps required, and (ii) non-conflicting actions can be executed instantaneously in parallel at a plan step. Underlying SAT-based approaches is the invocation of a decision procedure on a SAT encoding of a bounded version of the problem. A fundamental limitation of existing approaches is the size of these encodings. This problem stems from the use of a direct representation of actions - i.e. each action has a corresponding variable in the encoding. A longtime goal in planning has been to mitigate this limitation by developing a more compact split -also termed lifted - representation of actions in SAT encodings of parallel step-optimal problems. This paper describes such a representation. In particular, each action and each parallel execution of actions is represented uniquely as a conjunct of variables. Here, each variable is derived from action pre and post-conditions. Because multiple actions share conditions, our encoding of the planning constraints is factored and relatively compact. We find experimentally that our encoding yields a much more efficient and scalable planning procedure over the state-of-the-art in a large set of planning benchmarks.

[1]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  Act, and the Rest Will Follow: Exploiting Determinism in Planning as Satisfiability , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

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

[3]  Avrim Blum,et al.  Fast Planning Through Planning Graph Analysis , 1995, IJCAI.

[4]  Stephen F. Smith,et al.  Using Decision Procedures Efficiently for Optimization , 2007, ICAPS.

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

[6]  Abdul Sattar,et al.  A Compact and Efficient SAT Encoding for Planning , 2008, ICAPS.

[7]  Michael D. Ernst,et al.  Automatic SAT-Compilation of Planning Problems , 1997, IJCAI.

[8]  Henry A. Kautz Deconstructing Planning as Satisfiability , 2006, AAAI.

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

[10]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  Planning as Satisfiability with Relaxed $-Step Plans , 2007, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[11]  Katsumi Inoue,et al.  Lemma Reusing for SAT based Planning and Scheduling , 2006, ICAPS.

[12]  Matthew L. Ginsberg,et al.  The Complexity of Optimal Planning and a More Efficient Method for Finding Solutions , 2008, ICAPS.

[13]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Encoding Planning Problems in Nonmonotonic Logic Programs , 1997, ECP.

[14]  Jussi Rintanen Evaluation Strategies for Planning as Satisfiability , 2004, ECAI.

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

[16]  Jussi Rintanen Planning Graphs and Propositional Clause-Learning , 2008, KR.

[17]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  RSat 2.0: SAT Solver Description , 2006 .