Towards AI Planning Efficiency: Finite-Domain State Variable Reformulation

AI Planning is inherently hard and hence it is desirable to derive as much information as we can from the structure of the planning problem and let this information be exploited by a planner. Many recent planners use the finite-domain state-variable representation of the problem instead of the traditional propositional representation. However, most planning problems are still specified in the propositional representation due to the widespread modeling language PDDL and it is hard to generate a compact and computationally efficient state variable representation from the propositional model. In this paper we propose a novel method for automaticallygenerating an efficient state-variable representation from the propositional representation. This method groups sets of propositions into state variables based onthe mutex relations introduced in the planning graph. As we shall show experimentally, our method outperforms the current state-of-the-art method both in the smaller number of generated state variables and in the increased performance of planners.

[1]  R. Barták,et al.  Two Semantics for Step-Parallel Planning : Which One to Choose ? , 2011 .

[2]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  Combining the Expressivity of UCPOP with the Efficiency of Graphplan , 1997, ECP.

[3]  Jendrik Seipp,et al.  Fluent Merging for Classical Planning Problems , 2011 .

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

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

[6]  Erez Karpas,et al.  The SelMax Planner: Online Learning for Speeding up Optimal Planning , 2010 .

[7]  Jörg Hoffmann,et al.  Fast Downward Stone Soup , 2011 .

[8]  Maria Fox,et al.  The Automatic Inference of State Invariants in TIM , 1998, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[9]  Raz Nissim The Merge-and-Shrink Planner : Bisimulation-based Abstraction for Optimal Planning , 2011 .

[10]  Malte Helmert,et al.  LM-Cut : Optimal Planning with the Landmark-Cut Heuristic ∗ , 2009 .

[11]  C. Fawcett,et al.  FD-Autotune: Automated Configuration of Fast Downward , 2011 .

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

[13]  Malte Helmert,et al.  Concise finite-domain representations for PDDL planning tasks , 2009, Artif. Intell..

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

[15]  David E. Smith,et al.  Automatic Synthesis of Temporal Invariants , 2011, SARA.

[16]  Lenhart K. Schubert,et al.  Inferring State Constraints for Domain-Independent Planning , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[17]  Agostino Dovier,et al.  Multivalued action languages with constraints in CLP(FD) , 2010, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[18]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  An Iterative Algorithm for Synthesizing Invariants , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[19]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Logic programming , 2007 .

[20]  V. S. Subrahmanian,et al.  Complexity, Decidability and Undecidability Results for Domain-Independent Planning , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Yixin Chen,et al.  A Novel Transition Based Encoding Scheme for Planning as Satisfiability , 2010, AAAI.

[22]  Vijay V. Vazirani,et al.  Approximation Algorithms , 2001, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[23]  Paolo Traverso,et al.  Automated planning - theory and practice , 2004 .

[24]  Erez Karpas,et al.  BJOLP: The Big Joint Optimal Landmarks Planner , 2011 .

[25]  Panos M. Pardalos,et al.  The maximum clique problem , 1994, J. Glob. Optim..