A Compact and Efficient SAT Encoding for Planning

In the planning-as-SAT paradigm there have been numerous recent developments towards improving the speed and scalability of planning at the cost of finding a step-optimal parallel plan. These developments have been towards: (1) Query strategies that efficiently yield approximately optimal plans, and (2) Having a SAT procedure compute plans from relaxed encodings of the corresponding decision problems in such a way that conflicts in a plan arising from the relaxation are resolved cheaply during a post-processing phase. In this paper we examine a third direction of tightening constraints in order to achieve a more compact, efficient, and scalable SAT-based encoding of the planning problem. For the first time, we use lifting (i.e., operator splitting) and factoring to encode the corresponding n-step decision problems with a parallel action semantics. To ensure compactness we exploit reachability and neededness analysis of the plangraph. Our encoding also captures state-dependent mutex constraints computed during that analysis. Because we adopt a lifted action representation, our encoding cannot generally support full action parallelism. Thus, our approach could be termed approximate, planning for a number of steps between that required in the optimal parallel case and the optimal linear case. We perform a detailed experimental analysis of our approach with 3 state-of-the-art SAT-based planners using benchmarks from recent international planning competitions. We find that our approach dominates optimal SAT-based planners, and is more efficient than the relaxed planners for domains where the plan existence problem is hard.

[1]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Planning as satisfiability: parallel plans and algorithms for plan search , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Jussi Rintanen Evaluation Strategies for Planning as Satisfiability , 2004, ECAI.

[3]  S. Edelkamp,et al.  The Deterministic Part of IPC-4: An Overview , 2005, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[4]  Stephen F. Smith,et al.  Using Decision Procedures Efficiently for Optimization , 2007, ICAPS.

[5]  Yixin Chen,et al.  Long-Distance Mutual Exclusion for Propositional Planning , 2007, IJCAI.

[6]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  RSat 2.0: SAT Solver Description , 2006 .

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

[8]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  Planning as Satisfiability with Relaxed $-Step Plans , 2007, Australian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

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

[10]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Encoding Planning Problems in Nonmonotonic Logic Programs , 1997, ECP.

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

[12]  Michael D. Ernst,et al.  Automatic SAT-Compilation of Planning Problems , 1997, IJCAI.

[13]  Lawrence Ryan Efficient algorithms for clause-learning SAT solvers , 2004 .

[14]  Bart Selman,et al.  Pushing the Envelope: Planning, Propositional Logic and Stochastic Search , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 2.

[15]  Bart Selman,et al.  Encoding Plans in Propositional Logic , 1996, KR.

[16]  Henry A. Kautz Deconstructing Planning as Satisfiability , 2006, AAAI.

[17]  Bart Selman,et al.  Unifying SAT-based and Graph-based Planning , 1999, IJCAI.