Refinement Search as a Unifying Framework for Analyzing Planning Algorithms

Despite the long history of classical planning, there has been very little comparative analysis of the performance tradeoffs offered by the multitude of existing planning algorithms. This is partly due to the many different vocabularies within which planning algorithms are usually expressed. In this paper, I show that refinement search provides a unifying framework within which various planning algorithms can be cast and compared. I will provide refinement search semantics for planning, develop a generalized algorithm for refinement planning, and show that all planners that search in the space of plans are special cases of this algorithm. I will then show that besides its considerable pedagogical merits, the generalized algorithm also ( ) allows us to develop a model for analyzing the search space size, and refinement cost tradeoffs in plan space planning, ( ) facilitates theoretical and empirical analyses of competing planning algorithms and ( ) helps in synthesizing new planning algorithms with more favorable performance tradeoffs. I will end by discussing how the framework can be extended to cover other planning models (e.g. state-space, hierarchical), and richer behavioral constraints.

[1]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  On the Nature and Role of Modal Truth Criteria in Planning , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  On the Utility of Systematicity: Understanding Tradeoffs between Redundancy and Commitment in Partial-ordering Planning , 1993, IJCAI.

[3]  Steven Minton,et al.  Total Order vs. Partial Order Planning: Factors Influencing Performance , 1992, KR.

[4]  Drew McDermott,et al.  Regression planning , 1991, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[5]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  A Comparison of the SNLP and TWEAK Planning Algorithms , 1993 .

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

[7]  Edwin P. D. Pednault,et al.  Generalizing Nonlinear Planning to Handle Complex Goals and Actions with Context-Dependent Effects , 1991, IJCAI.

[8]  Gregg Collins,et al.  Achieving the Functionality of Filter Conditions in a Partial Order Planner , 1992, AAAI.

[9]  Edwin P. D. Pednault,et al.  Synthesizing plans that contain actions with context‐dependent effects 1 , 1988, Comput. Intell..

[10]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Heuristics : intelligent search strategies for computer problem solving , 1984 .

[11]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Design Tradeoffs in Partial Order (Plan space) Planning , 1994, AIPS.

[12]  Anthony Barrett,et al.  Partial-Order Planning: Evaluating Possible Efficiency Gains , 1994, Artificial Intelligence.

[13]  Austin Tate,et al.  Generating Project Networks , 1977, IJCAI.

[14]  David A. McAllester,et al.  Systematic Nonlinear Planning , 1991, AAAI.

[15]  Mark A. Peot,et al.  Postponing Threats in Partial-Order Planning , 1993, AAAI.

[16]  James A. Hendler,et al.  Toward a general framework for hierarchical task-network planning , 1993 .

[17]  Earl D. Sacerdoti,et al.  Planning in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces , 1974, IJCAI.

[18]  Austin Tate,et al.  O-Plan: The open Planning Architecture , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Steven Minton,et al.  Commitment Strategies in Planning: A Comparative Analysis , 1991, IJCAI.

[20]  Daniel S. Weld,et al.  UCPOP: A Sound, Complete, Partial Order Planner for ADL , 1992, KR.

[21]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Multi-Contributor Causal Structures for Planning: A Formalization and Evaluation , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[22]  James A. Hendler,et al.  Readings in Planning , 1994 .

[23]  J. Penberthy Planning with continuous change , 1993 .