On Exploiting Structures of Classical Planning Problems: Generalizing Entanglements

Much progress has been made in the research and development of automated planning algorithms in recent years. Though incremental improvements in algorithm design are still desirable, complementary approaches such as problem reformulation are important in tackling the high computational complexity of planning. While machine learning and adaptive techniques have been usefully applied to automated planning, these advances are often tied to a particular planner or class of planners that are coded to exploit that learned knowledge. A promising research direction is in exploiting knowledge engineering techniques such as reformulating the planning domain and/or the planning problem to make the problem easier to solve for general, state-of-the-art planners. Learning (outer) entanglements is one such technique, where relations between planning operators and initial or goal atoms are learned, and used to reformulate a domain by removing unneeded operator instances. Here we generalize this approach significantly to cover relations between atoms and pairs of operators themselves, and develop a technique for producing inner entanglements. We present methods for detecting inner entanglements and for using them to do problem reformulation. We provide a theoretical treatment of the area, and an empirical evaluation of the methods using standard planning benchmarks and state-of-the-art planners.

[1]  John K. Slaney,et al.  Blocks World revisited , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[2]  John Levine,et al.  Learning Macro-Actions for Arbitrary Planners and Domains , 2007, ICAPS.

[3]  Lukás Chrpa,et al.  Reformulating Planning Problems by Eliminating Unpromising Actions , 2009, SARA.

[4]  Kevin Barraclough,et al.  I and i , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

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

[7]  Jonathan Schaeffer,et al.  Macro-FF: Improving AI Planning with Automatically Learned Macro-Operators , 2005, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[8]  Lukás Chrpa,et al.  Generation of macro-operators via investigation of action dependencies in plans , 2010, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[9]  Malte Helmert,et al.  The Fast Downward Planning System , 2006, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[11]  Patrik Haslum,et al.  Admissible Heuristics for Optimal Planning , 2000, AIPS.

[12]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  COMPLEXITY RESULTS FOR SAS+ PLANNING , 1995, Comput. Intell..

[13]  Silvia Richter,et al.  The LAMA Planner: Guiding Cost-Based Anytime Planning with Landmarks , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  Stefan Edelkamp,et al.  Automated Planning: Theory and Practice , 2007, Künstliche Intell..

[15]  Jörg Hoffmann Analyzing Search Topology Without Running Any Search: On the Connection Between Causal Graphs and h+ , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[17]  Andrew Coles,et al.  Completeness-Preserving Pruning for Optimal Planning , 2010, ECAI.

[18]  H. Osborne,et al.  Reformulating Planning Problems: A Theoretical Point of View , 2012, FLAIRS.

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

[20]  Paolo Traverso,et al.  Automated Planning: Theory & Practice , 2004 .

[21]  Thomas Dean,et al.  Automated planning , 1996, CSUR.

[22]  Yixin Chen,et al.  Completeness and Optimality Preserving Reduction for Planning , 2009, IJCAI.

[23]  Ivan Serina,et al.  Planning in PDDL2.2 Domains with LPG-td , 2004 .

[24]  Blai Bonet,et al.  Planning as Heuristic Search: New Results , 1999, ECP.

[25]  Marco Pistore,et al.  Handbook of Knowledge Representation Edited Automated Planning , 2022 .