Impact of Modeling Languages on the Theory and Practice in Planning Research

We propose revisions to the research agenda in Automated Planning. The proposal is based on a review of the role of the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) in the activities of the AI planning community and the impact of PDDL on parts of its research agenda. We specifically show how specific properties of PDDL have impacted research on planning, by putting emphasis on certain research topics and complicating others. We argue that the development of more advanced modeling languages would be - analogously to the impact PDDL has had - a low overhead and smooth route for the ICAPS community shift its research focus to increasingly promising and relevant research topics.

[1]  Christer Bäckström,et al.  State-Variable Planning Under Structural Restrictions: Algorithms and Complexity , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[2]  D. McDermott.  PDDL2.1 - The Art of the Possible? Commentary on Fox and Long , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[3]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  Regression for Classical and Nondeterministic Planning , 2008, ECAI.

[4]  Malte Helmert,et al.  Exhibiting Knowledge in Planning Problems to Minimize State Encoding Length , 1999, ECP.

[5]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  An Iterative Algorithm for Synthesizing Invariants , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

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

[7]  Lenhart K. Schubert,et al.  Discovering State Constraints in DISCOPLAN: Some New Results , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[8]  Jussi Rintanen.  Constraint-Based Algorithm for Computing Temporal Invariants , 2014, JELIA.

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

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

[11]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  Parallel Encodings of Classical Planning as Satisfiability , 2004, JELIA.

[12]  Hector Geffner.  PDDL 2.1: Representation vs. Computation , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[13]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  When is Temporal Planning Really Temporal? , 2007, IJCAI.

[14]  Piergiorgio Bertoli,et al.  A SAT Based Approach for Solving Formulas over Boolean and Linear Mathematical Propositions , 2002, CADE.

[15]  David E. Smith,et al.  The ANML Language , 2007 .

[16]  Malte Helmert,et al.  A Planning Heuristic Based on Causal Graph Analysis , 2004, ICAPS.

[17]  Mark S. Boddy.  Imperfect Match: PDDL 2.1 and Real Applications , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[18]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  A Planning Algorithm not based on Directional Search , 1998, KR.

[19]  Fahiem Bacchus.  The Power of Modeling - a Response to PDDL2.1 , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

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

[22]  Malte Helmert,et al.  Concise finite-domain representations for PDDL planning tasks , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[23]  David E. Smith.  The Case for Durative Actions: A Commentary on PDDL2.1 , 2003, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[24]  Carmel Domshlak,et al.  Implicit Abstraction Heuristics , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[25]  David E. Smith,et al.  Automatic Synthesis of Temporal Invariants , 2011, SARA.

[26]  T. L. McCluskey,et al.  Workshop on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (KEPS) , 2008 .