ARMS : Action-Relation Modelling System for Learning Action Models

We present a system for automatically discovering action models from a set of successful observed plans. AI planning requires the definition of an action model using a language such as PDDL as input. However, building an action model from scratch is a difficult and timeconsuming task even for experts. Unlike the previous work in action-model learning, ARMS does not assume complete knowledge of states in the middle of the observed plans; in fact, our approach would work when no or partial intermediate states are given. These example plans are obtained by an observation agent who does not know the logical encoding of actions and the full state information between actions. In a real world application, the cost is prohibitively high in labelling the training examples by manually annotating every state in a plan example from snapshots of an environment. To learn action models, ARMS gathers knowledge on the statistical distribution of frequent sets of actions in the example plans. It then builds a weighted propositional satisfiability (Weighted SAT) problem and solves it using a weighted MAX-SAT solver. We lay the theoretical foundations of the learning problem and evaluate the effectiveness of ARMS empirically.

[1]  Richard Fikes,et al.  STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving , 1971, IJCAI.

[2]  Edwin P. D. Pednault,et al.  FORMULATING MULTIAGENT, DYNAMIC-WORLD PROBLEMS IN THE CLASSICAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK , 1987 .

[3]  Yolanda Gil,et al.  Learning by Experimentation: Incremental Refinement of Incomplete Planning Domains , 1994, International Conference on Machine Learning.

[4]  Maurice Bruynooghe,et al.  Using the event calculus to integrate planning and learning in an intelligent autonomous agent , 1994 .

[5]  Wei-Min Shen,et al.  Autonomous learning from the environment , 1994 .

[6]  Scott Benson,et al.  Inductive Learning of Reactive Action Models , 1995, ICML.

[7]  Xuemei Wang,et al.  Learning by Observation and Practice: An Incremental Approach for Planning Operator Acquisition , 1995, ICML.

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

[9]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Searching for Planning Operators with Context-Dependent and Probabilistic Effects , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[10]  Hantao Zhang,et al.  SATO: An Efficient Propositional Prover , 1997, CADE.

[11]  Qiang Yang,et al.  Automatically Selecting and Using Primary Effects in Planning: Theory and Experiments , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Brian Borchers,et al.  A Two-Phase Exact Algorithm for MAX-SAT and Weighted MAX-SAT Problems , 1998, J. Comb. Optim..

[13]  Ramakrishnan Srikant,et al.  Fast algorithms for mining association rules , 1998, VLDB 1998.

[14]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  PDDL-the planning domain definition language , 1998 .

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

[16]  Yolanda Gil,et al.  An integrated environment for knowledge acquisition , 2001, IUI '01.

[17]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Analyzing Plans with Conditional Effects , 2002, AIPS.

[18]  Andrew Garland,et al.  Plan evaluation with incomplete action descriptions , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[19]  T. L. McCluskey,et al.  GIPO II: HTN Planning in a Tool-supported Knowledge Engineering Environment , 2003, ICAPS.

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

[21]  Qiang Yang,et al.  Learning Actions Models from Plan Examples with Incomplete Knowledge , 2005, ICAPS.