Towards efficient universal planning: A randomized approach

One of the most widespread approaches to reactive planning is Schoppers' universal plans. We propose a stricter definition of universal plans which guarantees a weak notion of soundness, not present in the original definition, and isolate three different types of completeness that capture different behaviors exhibited by universal plans. We show that universal plans which run in polynomial time and are of polynomial size cannot satisfy even the weakest type of completeness unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses. By relaxing either the polynomial time or the polynomial space requirement, the construction of universal plans satisfying the strongest type of completeness becomes trivial. As an alternative approach, we study randomized universal planning. By considering a randomized version of completeness and a restricted (but nontrivial) class of problems, we show that there exists randomized universal plans running in polynomial time and using polynomial space which are sound and complete for the restricted class of problems. We also report experimental results on this approach to planning, showing that the performance of a randomized planner is not easily compared to that of a deterministic planner.

[1]  Marcel Schoppers,et al.  Estimating Reaction Plan Size , 1994, AAAI.

[2]  J. Köbler,et al.  New Collapse Consequences of NP Having Small Circuits , 1999, SIAM J. Comput..

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

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

[5]  David Chapman,et al.  Penguins Can Make Cake , 1989, AI Mag..

[6]  Jan van Leeuwen,et al.  Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. A: Algorithms and Complexity , 1994 .

[7]  Marcel Schoppers,et al.  Universal Plans for Reactive Robots in Unpredictable Environments , 1987, IJCAI.

[8]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[9]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Randomized Algorithms , 1995, SIGA.

[10]  David S. Johnson,et al.  A Catalog of Complexity Classes , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume A: Algorithms and Complexity.

[11]  Tran Cao Son,et al.  Relating Theories of Actions and Reactive Control , 1998, Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell..

[12]  Walter J. Savitch,et al.  Relationships Between Nondeterministic and Deterministic Tape Complexities , 1970, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[13]  Tom Bylander,et al.  The Computational Complexity of Propositional STRIPS Planning , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Marcel Schoppers,et al.  In Defense of Reaction Plans as Caches , 1989, AI Mag..

[15]  P. Pandurang Nayak,et al.  A Reactive Planner for a Model-based Executive , 1997, IJCAI.

[16]  Matthew L. Ginsberg,et al.  Universal Planning: An (Almost) Universally Bad Idea , 1989, AI Mag..

[17]  Christer Bäckström,et al.  On the Size of Reactive Plans , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2.

[18]  Bart Selman,et al.  Near-Optimal Plans, Tractability, and Reactivity , 1994, KR.

[19]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Symmetric Space-Bounded Computation , 1982, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Christer Bäckström,et al.  Expressive Equivalence of Planning Formalisms , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Richard E. Korf,et al.  Planning as Search: A Quantitative Approach , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Matthew L. Ginsberg Ginsberg Replies to Chapman and Schoppers , 1989 .

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

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

[25]  Russ Bubley,et al.  Randomized algorithms , 1995, CSUR.