Learning Actions Models from Plan Examples with Incomplete Knowledge

AI planning requires the definition of an action model using a language such as PDDL as input. However, building an action model from scratch is a difficult and time-consuming task even for experts. In this paper, we develop an algorithm called ARMS for automatically discovering action models from a set of successful plan examples. Unlike the previous work in action-model learning, we do not assume complete knowledge of states in the middle of the example plans; that is, we assume that no intermediate states are given. This requirement is motivated by a variety of applications, including object tracking and plan monitoring where the knowledge about intermediate states is either minimal or unavailable to the observing agent. In a real world application, the cost is prohibitively high in labelling the training examples by manually annotating every state in a plan example from snapshots of an environment. To learn action models, our ARMS algorithm gathers knowledge on the statistical distribution of frequent sets of actions in the example plans. It then builds a propositional satisfiability (SAT) problem and solves it using a SAT solver. We lay the theoretical foundations of the learning problem and evaluate the effectiveness of ARMS empirically.

[1]  Andrew Garland,et al.  Plan evaluation with incomplete action descriptions , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[2]  Xuemei Wang,et al.  Learning by Observation and Practice: An Incremental Approach for Planning Operator Acquisition , 1995, ICML.

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

[4]  Qiang Yang,et al.  High-Level Goal Recognition in a Wireless LAN , 2004, AAAI.

[5]  Maurice Bruynooghe,et al.  Using the event calculus to integrate planning and learning in an intelligent autonomous agent , 1994 .

[6]  Hantao Zhang,et al.  SATO: An Efficient Propositional Prover , 1997, CADE.

[7]  Scott Benson,et al.  Inductive Learning of Reactive Action Models , 1995, ICML.

[8]  Yolanda Gil,et al.  An integrated environment for knowledge acquisition , 2001, IUI '01.

[9]  Richard Fikes,et al.  STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving , 1971, IJCAI.

[10]  Malte Helmert,et al.  The Model Checking Integrated Planning System (MIPS) , 2001 .

[11]  Brian Borchers,et al.  A Two-Phase Exact Algorithm for MAX-SAT and Weighted MAX-SAT Problems , 1998, J. Comb. Optim..

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

[13]  T. L. McCluskey,et al.  GIPO II: HTN Planning in a Tool-supported Knowledge Engineering Environment , 2003, ICAPS.

[14]  Ramakrishnan Srikant,et al.  Fast algorithms for mining association rules , 1998, VLDB 1998.

[15]  Qiang Yang,et al.  Automatically Selecting and Using Primary Effects in Planning: Theory and Experiments , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[16]  W. W. Bledsoe,et al.  Review of "Problem-Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence by Nils J. Nilsson", McGraw-Hill Pub. , 1971, SGAR.

[17]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Analyzing Plans with Conditional Effects , 2002, AIPS.

[18]  Wei-Min Shen,et al.  Autonomous learning from the environment , 1994 .

[19]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver , 2001, Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37232).

[20]  Yolanda Gil,et al.  Learning by Experimentation: Incremental Refinement of Incomplete Planning Domains , 1994, International Conference on Machine Learning.

[21]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Searching for Planning Operators with Context-Dependent and Probabilistic Effects , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[22]  Ramakrishnan Srikant,et al.  Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules in Large Databases , 1994, VLDB.