SMT-Based Nonlinear PDDL+ Planning

PDDL+ planning involves reasoning about mixed discrete-continuous change over time. Nearly all PDDL+ planners assume that continuous change is linear. We present a new technique that accommodates nonlinear change by encoding problems as nonlinear hybrid systems. Using this encoding, we apply a Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solver to find plans. We show that it is important to use novel planning-specific heuristics for variable and value selection for SMT solving, which is inspired by recent advances in planning as SAT. We show the promising performance of the resulting solver on challenging nonlinear problems.

[1]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  An Extensible SAT-solver , 2003, SAT.

[2]  Anna Philippou,et al.  Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems , 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[3]  Andrew Coles,et al.  PDDL+ Planning with Events and Linear Processes , 2014, ICAPS.

[4]  Maria Fox,et al.  Modelling Mixed Discrete-Continuous Domains for Planning , 2006, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[5]  Maria Fox,et al.  Exploration of the Robustness of Plans , 2005, AAAI.

[6]  Patrik Haslum,et al.  Admissible Heuristics for Optimal Planning , 2000, AIPS.

[7]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  The theory of hybrid automata , 1996, Proceedings 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[8]  Roberto Bruttomesso,et al.  The OpenSMT Solver , 2010, TACAS.

[9]  Armando Tacchella,et al.  Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[10]  Andrew Coles,et al.  COLIN: Planning with Continuous Linear Numeric Change , 2012, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[11]  Frédéric Benhamou,et al.  Algorithm 852: RealPaver: an interval solver using constraint satisfaction techniques , 2006, TOMS.

[12]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  δ-Complete Decision Procedures for Satisfiability over the Reals , 2012, IJCAR.

[13]  Antoine Girard,et al.  SpaceEx: Scalable Verification of Hybrid Systems , 2011, CAV.

[14]  Ji-Ae Shin,et al.  Processes and continuous change in a SAT-based planner , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Sergiy Bogomolov,et al.  Planning as Model Checking in Hybrid Domains , 2014, AAAI.

[16]  Benedetto Intrigila,et al.  UPMurphi: A Tool for Universal Planning on PDDL+ Problems , 2009, ICAPS.

[17]  David A. McAllester,et al.  Solving Polynomial Systems Using a Branch and Prune Approach , 1997 .

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

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

[20]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2014, AAAI 2014.

[21]  Bart Selman,et al.  Planning as Satisfiability , 1992, ECAI.

[22]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  Planning as satisfiability: Heuristics , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[23]  J. Ho,et al.  The Metric FF Planning System Translating Ignoring Delete Lists to Numeric State Variables , 2003 .