Determining Linearity of Optimal Plans by Operator Schema Analysis

Analysing the structures of solution plans generated by AI Planning engines is helpful in improving the generative planning process, as well as shedding light in the study of its theoretical foundations.We investigate a specific property of solution plans, that we called linearity, which refers to a situation where each action achieves an atom (or atoms) for a directly following action, or achieves goal atom(s). Similarly, linearity can be defined for parallel plans where each action in a set of actions executed at some time step, achieves either goal atom(s) or atom(s) for some action executed in the directly following time step. In this paper, we present a general and problem-independent theoretical framework focusing on the analysis of planning operator schema, namely relations of achiever, clobberer and independence, in order to determine whether solvable planning problems using a given operator schema have as solutions optimal (parallel) plans which are linear. The findings presented in this paper deepen current theoretical knowledge, provide helpful information to engineers of new planning domain models, and suggest new ways of improving the performance of state-of-theart (optimal) planning engines.

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

[2]  Lukás Chrpa,et al.  Generation of macro-operators via investigation of action dependencies in plans , 2010, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[3]  Jussi Rintanen Engineering Efficient Planners with SAT , 2012, ECAI.

[4]  Malte Helmert,et al.  Complexity results for standard benchmark domains in planning , 2003, Artif. Intell..

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

[6]  Jonathan Schaeffer,et al.  Macro-FF: Improving AI Planning with Automatically Learned Macro-Operators , 2005, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[7]  Anders Jonsson,et al.  On the Hardness of Planning Problems with Simple Causal Graphs , 2007, ICAPS.

[8]  John K. Slaney,et al.  Blocks World revisited , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Erez Karpas,et al.  Optimal Search with Inadmissible Heuristics , 2012, ICAPS.

[10]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Planning as constraint satisfaction: Solving the planning graph by compiling it into CSP , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Maria Fox,et al.  The Automatic Inference of State Invariants in TIM , 1998, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[12]  Carmel Domshlak,et al.  Structural Patterns of Tractable Sequentially-Optimal Planning , 2007, ICAPS.

[13]  Silvia Richter,et al.  The LAMA Planner: Guiding Cost-Based Anytime Planning with Landmarks , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  Maria Fox,et al.  STAN4: A Hybrid Planning Strategy Based on Subproblem Abstraction , 2001, AI Mag..

[15]  Pavel Surynek Tractable Class of a Problem of Goal Satisfaction in Mutual Exclusion Network , 2008, FLAIRS Conference.

[16]  Craig A. Knoblock Automatically Generating Abstractions for Planning , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Jörg Hoffmann,et al.  Ordered Landmarks in Planning , 2004, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[18]  Lukás Chrpa,et al.  Optimizing Plans through Analysis of Action Dependencies and Independencies , 2012, ICAPS.

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

[20]  Andrew Coles,et al.  Completeness-Preserving Pruning for Optimal Planning , 2010, ECAI.

[21]  Yue Chen,et al.  The Complexity of Planning Revisited - A Parameterized Analysis , 2012, AAAI.

[22]  Malte Helmert,et al.  New Complexity Results for Classical Planning Benchmarks , 2006, ICAPS.

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

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

[25]  Paolo Traverso,et al.  Automated planning - theory and practice , 2004 .

[26]  Yixin Chen,et al.  Completeness and Optimality Preserving Reduction for Planning , 2009, IJCAI.