Planning as constraint satisfaction: Solving the planning graph by compiling it into CSP

The idea of synthesizing bounded length plans by compiling planning problems into a combinatorial substrate, and solving the resulting encodings has become quite popular in recent years. Most work to-date has however concentrated on compilation to satisfiability (SAT) theories and integer linear programming (ILP). In this paper we will show that CSP is a better substrate for the compilation approach, compared to both SAT and ILP. We describe GP-CSP, a system that does planning by automatically converting Graphplan's planning graph into a CSP encoding and solving it using standard CSP solvers. Our comprehensive empirical evaluation of GP-CSP demonstrates that it is superior to both the Blackbox system, which compiles planning graphs into SAT encodings, and an ILP-based planner in a wide range of planning domains. Our results show that CSP encodings outperform SAT encodings in terms of both space and time requirements in various problems. The space reduction is particularly important as it makes GP-CSP less susceptible to the memory blow-up associated with SAT compilation methods. The paper also discusses various techniques in setting up the CSP encodings, planning specific improvements to CSP solvers, and strategies for variable and value selection heuristics for solving the CSP encodings of different types of planning problems. Copyright 2001. Elsevier Science B.V.

[1]  Dana S. Nau,et al.  On the Use of Integer Programming Models in AI Planning , 1999, IJCAI.

[2]  Peter van Beek,et al.  CPlan: A Constraint Programming Approach to Planning , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[3]  David E. Smith,et al.  Extending Graphplan to Handle Uncertainty & Sensing Actions , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

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

[5]  Jörg Hoffmann A Heuristic for Domain Independent Planning and its Use in an Enforced Hill-climbing Algorithm , 2000, PuK.

[6]  N. Ames On Reformulating Planning as Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction (extended Abstract) , 2000 .

[7]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  On the Relations Between Intelligent Backtracking and Failure-Driven Explanation-Based Learning in Constraint Satisfaction and Planning , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Matthew L. Ginsberg,et al.  Satisfiability Algorithms and Finite Quantification , 2000, KR.

[9]  Henry A. Kautz,et al.  State-space Planning by Integer Optimization , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[10]  Alexander Bockmayr,et al.  Mixed Integer Programming Models for Planning Problems , 1998 .

[11]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1990, AAAI.

[12]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Planning the project management way: Efficient planning by effective integration of causal and resource reasoning in RealPlan , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Bart Selman,et al.  Encoding Plans in Propositional Logic , 1996, KR.

[14]  Mark S. Fox,et al.  Intelligent Scheduling , 1998 .

[15]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Dead-End Driven Learning , 1994, AAAI.

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

[17]  Maria Fox,et al.  The Detection and Exploitation of Symmetry in Planning Problems , 1999, IJCAI.

[18]  S. Wolfman Automatic Discovery and Exploitation of Domain Knowledge in Planning , 1999 .

[19]  Daniel P. Miranker,et al.  A Complexity Analysis of Space-Bounded Learning Algorithms for the Constraint Satisfaction Problem , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[20]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Exploiting Symmetry in the Planning graph via Explanation-Guided Search , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[21]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Improving Graphplan's Search with EBL & DDB Techniques , 1999, IJCAI.

[22]  Jeremy Frank,et al.  On Reformulating Planning as Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction , 2000, SARA.

[23]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Temporal Constraint Networks , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[24]  David E. Smith,et al.  Temporal Planning with Mutual Exclusion Reasoning , 1999, IJCAI.

[25]  David E. Smith,et al.  Extending Graphplan to handle uncertainty and sensing actions , 1998, AAAI 1998.

[26]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Understanding and Extending Graphplan , 1997, ECP.

[27]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  A Planning Algorithm not based on Directional Search , 1998, KR.

[28]  Bart Selman,et al.  Pushing the Envelope: Planning, Propositional Logic and Stochastic Search , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2.

[29]  Jorg Homann A Heuristic for Domain Independent Planning and Its Use in an Enforced Hill-Climbing Algorithm , 2000 .

[30]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Investigating the Effect of Relevance and Reachability Constraints on SAT Encodings of Planning , 1999, AIPS.

[31]  Matthew L. GinsbergCIRL,et al.  Satissability Algorithms and Finite Quantiication , 2000 .

[32]  Blai Bonet,et al.  A Robust and Fast Action Selection Mechanism for Planning , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

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

[34]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  On the utility of Plan-space (Causal) Encodings , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[35]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Solving Planning-Graph by Compiling It into CSP , 2000, AIPS.

[36]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Distance-Based Goal-Ordering Heuristics for Graphplan , 2000, AIPS.

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

[38]  Edward P. K. Tsang,et al.  Foundations of constraint satisfaction , 1993, Computation in cognitive science.

[39]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Scaling up Planning by Teasing out Resource Scheduling , 1999, ECP.

[40]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Planning Graph as a (Dynamic) CSP: Exploiting EBL, DDB and other CSP Search Techniques in Graphplan , 2000, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[41]  M. Fox,et al.  Efficient Implementation of the Plan Graph in STAN , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[42]  Henry Kautz,et al.  Blackbox: Unifying sat-based and graph-based planning , 1999, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.