Integrating Golog and Planning : An Empirical Evaluation

The Golog family of action languages has proven to be a useful means for the high-level control of autonomous agents, such as mobile robots. In particular, the IndiGolog variant, where programs are executed in an online manner, is applicable in realistic scenarios where agents possess only incomplete knowledge about the state of the world, have to use sensors to gather necessary information at runtime and need to react to spontaneous, exogenous events that happen unpredictably due to a dynamic environment. Often, the specification of such an agent’s program also involves that certain subgoals have to be solved by means of planning. IndiGolog supports this in principle by providing a variety of lookahead mechanisms, but when it comes to pure, sequential planning, these usually cannot compete with modern state-of-the-art planning systems, most of which being based on the Planning Domain Definition Language PDDL. Previous theoretical results provide insights on the semantical compatibility between Golog and PDDL and how they compare in terms of expressiveness. In this paper, we complement these results with an empirical evaluation that shows that equipping IndiGolog with a PDDL planner (FF in our case) pays off in terms of the runtime performance of the overall system. For that matter, we study a number of example application domains and compare the needed computation times for varying problem sizes and difficulties.

[1]  Maria Fox,et al.  PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[3]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  On the Semantics of Deliberation in IndiGolog — from Theory to Implementation , 2002, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

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

[5]  Edwin P. D. Pednault,et al.  ADL: Exploring the Middle Ground Between STRIPS and the Situation Calculus , 1989, KR.

[6]  Derek Long,et al.  Plan Constraints and Preferences in PDDL3 , 2006 .

[7]  Malte Helmert,et al.  Understanding Planning Tasks: Domain Complexity and Heuristic Decomposition , 2008, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[8]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  GOLOG: A Logic Programming Language for Dynamic Domains , 1997, J. Log. Program..

[9]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems , 2002 .

[10]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Incremental execution of guarded theories , 2001, ACM Trans. Comput. Log..

[11]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  ConGolog, a concurrent programming language based on the situation calculus , 2000, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  On the Relative Expressiveness of ADL and Golog: The Last Piece in the Puzzle , 2008, KR.

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

[14]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  The Interactive Museum Tour-Guide Robot , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[15]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  Towards an Integration of Golog and Planning , 2007, IJCAI.

[16]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Expressiveness of ADL and Golog: Functions Make a Difference , 2007, AAAI.

[17]  John McCarthy,et al.  SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ARTI CIAL INTELLIGENCE , 1987 .

[18]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Controlling Autonomous Robots with GOLOG , 1997, Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.