On the Role of Disjunctive Representations and Constraint Propagation in Refinement Planning

Most existing planners intertwine the refinement of a partial plan with search by pushing the individual refinements of a plan into different search branches. Although this approach reduces the cost of handling partial plans, it also often leads to search space explosion. In this paper, we consider the possibility of handling the refinements of a partial plan together (without splitting them into search space). This is facilitated by disjunctive partial plan representations that can compactly represent large sets of partial plans. Disjunctive representations have hitherto been shunned since they may increase the plan handling costs. We argue that performance improvements can be obtained despite these costs by the use of (a) constraint propagation techniques to simplify the disjunctive plans and (b) CSP/SAT techniques to extract solutions from them. We will support this view by showing that some recent promising refinement planners, such as the GRAPHPLAN algorithm [2], can be seen as deriving their power from disjunctive plan representations. We will also present a new planning algorithm, UCPOPD, which uses disjunctive representations over UCPOP [19] to improve performance. Finally, we will discuss the issues and tradeoffs involved in planning with disjunctive representations.

[1]  James M. Crawford,et al.  Experimental Results on the Crossover Point inSatis ability , 1993 .

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

[3]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Planning as Refinement Search: A Unified Framework for Evaluating Design Tradeoffs in Partial-Order Planning , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Qiang Yang,et al.  A Theory of Conflict Resolution in Planning , 1992, Artif. Intell..

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

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

[7]  S. Kambhampati,et al.  Universal classical planner: an algorithm for unifying state-space and plan-space planning , 1996 .

[8]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Failure Driven Dynamic Search Control for Partial Order Planners: An Explanation Based Approach , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Linkability: Examining Causal Link Commitments in Partial-order Planning , 1994, AIPS.

[10]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  A New Method for Solving Hard Satisfiability Problems , 1992, AAAI.

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

[12]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Design and Implementation of a Replay Framework Based on a Partial Order Planner , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[13]  Edward P. K. Tsang,et al.  Foundations of constraint satisfaction , 1993, Computation in cognitive science.

[14]  Martha E. Pollack,et al.  Passive and active decision postponement in plan generation , 1996 .

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

[16]  Eugene Fink,et al.  Formalizing the PRODIGY planning algorithm , 1996 .

[17]  Matthew L. Ginsberg A New Algorithm for Generative Planning , 1996, KR.

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

[19]  Martha E. Pollack,et al.  Least-Cost Flaw Repair: A Plan Refinement Strategy for Partial-Order Planning , 1994, AAAI.

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