FLAP: Applying Least-Commitment in Forward-Chaining Planning

In this paper, we present FLAP, a partial-order planner that accurately applies the least-commitment principle that governs traditional partial-order planning. FLAP fully exploits the partial ordering among actions of a plan and hence it solves more problems than other similar approaches. The search engine of FLAP uses a combination of different state-based heuristics and applies a parallel search technique to diversify the search in different directions when a plateau is found. In the experimental evaluation, we compare FLAP with OPTIC, LPG-td and TFD, three state-of-the-art nonlinear planners. The results show that FLAP outperforms these planners in terms of number of problems solved; in addition, the plans of FLAP represent a good trade-off between quality and computational time.This work has been partly supported by the Spanish MICINN under projects Consolider Ingenio 2010 CSD2007-00022 and TIN2011-27652-C03-01, the Valencian Prometeo project II/2013/019.Sapena Vercher, O.; Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E.; Torreño Lerma, A. (2015). FLAP: Applying Least-Commitment in Forward-Chaining Planning. AI Communications. 28(1):5-20. https://doi.org/10.3233/AIC-140613S52028

A new local-search algorithm for forward-chaining planning

This paper discusses a new local search algorithm for forward chaining planning

The 2011 International Planning Competition

After a 3 years gap, the 2011 edition of the IPC involved a total of 55 planners, some of them versions of the same planner, distributed among four tracks: the sequential satisficing track (27 planners submitted out of 38 registered), the sequential multicore track (8 planners submitted out of 12 registered), the sequential optimal track (12 planners submitted out of 24 registered) and the temporal satisficing track (8 planners submitted out of 14 registered). Three more tracks were open to participation: temporal optimal, preferences satisficing and preferences optimal. Unfortunately the number of submitted planners did not allow these tracks to be finally included in the competition. A total of 55 people were participating, grouped in 31 teams. Participants came from Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Spain, UK and USA. For the sequential tracks 14 domains, with 20 problems each, were selected, while the temporal one had 12 domains, also with 20 problems each. Both new and past domains were included. As in previous competitions, domains and problems were unknown for participants and all the experimentation was carried out by the organizers. To run the competition a cluster of eleven 64-bits computers (Intel XEON 2.93 Ghz Quad core processor) using Linux was set up. Up to 1800 seconds, 6 GB of RAM memory and 750 GB of hard disk were available for each planner to solve a problem. This resulted in 7540 computing hours (about 315 days), plus a high number of hours devoted to preliminary experimentation with new domains, reruns and bugs fixing. The detailed results of the competition, the software used for automating most tasks, the source code of all the participating planners and the description of domains and problems can be found at the competition’s web page: http://www.plg.inf.uc3m.es/ipc2011-deterministicThis booklet summarizes the participants on the Deterministic Track of the International Planning Competition (IPC) 2011. Papers describing all the participating planners are included