Planning and Proof Planning

. The paper adresses proof planning as a specific AI planning. It describes some peculiarities of proof planning and discusses some possible cross-fertilization of planning and proof planning. 1 Introduction Planning is an established area of Artificial Intelligence (AI) whereas proof planning introduced by Bundy in [2] still lives in its childhood. This means that the development of proof planning needs maturing impulses and the natural questions arise What can proof planning learn from its Big Brother planning?' and What are the specific characteristics of the proof planning domain that determine the answer?'. In turn for planning, the analysis of approaches points to a need of mature techniques for practical planning. Drummond [8], e.g., analyzed approaches with the conclusion that the success of Nonlin, SIPE, and O-Plan in practical planning can be attributed to hierarchical action expansion, the explicit representation of a plan's causal structure, and a very simple form of propo..

Increasing the Numeric Expressiveness of the Planning Domain Definition Language

The technology of artificial intelligence (AI) planning is being adopted across many different disciplines. This has resulted in the wider use of the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL), where it is being used to model planning problems of different natures. One such area where AI planning is particularly attractive is engineering, where the optimisation problems are mathematically rich. The example used throughout this paper is the optimisation (minimisation) of machine tool measurement uncertainty. This planning problem highlights the limits of PDDL's numerical expressiveness in the absence of the square root function. A workaround method using the Babylonian algorithm is then evaluated before the extension of PDDL to include more mathematics functions is discussed

Progress in AI Planning Research and Applications

Planning has made significant progress since its inception in the 1970s, in terms both of the efficiency and sophistication of its algorithms and representations and its potential for application to real problems. In this paper we sketch the foundations of planning as a sub-field of Artificial Intelligence and the history of its development over the past three decades. Then some of the recent achievements within the field are discussed and provided some experimental data demonstrating the progress that has been made in the application of general planners to realistic and complex problems. The paper concludes by identifying some of the open issues that remain as important challenges for future research in planning

Crisis action planning and replanning using SIPE-2

Rome Laboratory and DARPA are jointly sponsoring an initiative to develop the next generation of AI planning and scheduling technology focused on military operations planning, especially for crisis situations. SRI International has demonstrated their knowledge-based planning technology in this domain with a system called SOCAP, System for Operations Crisis Action Planning. SOCAP's underlying power comes from SIPE-2, a hierarchical, domain-independent, nonlinear AI planner also developed at SRI. This paper discusses the features of SIPE-2 that made it an ideal choice for military operations planning and which contributed greatly to SOCAP's success

Explainable Planning

As AI is increasingly being adopted into application solutions, the challenge of supporting interaction with humans is becoming more apparent. Partly this is to support integrated working styles, in which humans and intelligent systems cooperate in problem-solving, but also it is a necessary step in the process of building trust as humans migrate greater responsibility to such systems. The challenge is to find effective ways to communicate the foundations of AI-driven behaviour, when the algorithms that drive it are far from transparent to humans. In this paper we consider the opportunities that arise in AI planning, exploiting the model-based representations that form a familiar and common basis for communication with users, while acknowledging the gap between planning algorithms and human problem-solving.Comment: Presented at the IJCAI-17 workshop on Explainable AI (http://home.earthlink.net/~dwaha/research/meetings/ijcai17-xai/). Melbourne, August 201

SOCAP: Lessons learned in applying SIPE-2 to the military operations crisis action planning domain

This report describes work funded under the DARPA Planning and Scheduling Initiative that led to the development of SOCAP (System for Operations Crisis Action Planning). In particular, it describes lessons learned in applying SIPE-2, the underlying AI planning technology within SOCAP, to the domain of military operations deliberate and crisis action planning. SOCAP was demonstrated at the U.S. Central Command and at the Pentagon in early 1992. A more detailed report about the lessons learned is currently being prepared. This report was presented during one of the panel discussions on 'The Relevance of Scheduling to AI Planning Systems.

Portfolio Methods for Optimal Planning: an Empirical Analysis

Combining the complementary strengths of several algorithms through portfolio approaches has been demonstrated to be effective in solving a wide range of AI problems. Notably, portfolio techniques have been prominently applied to suboptimal (satisficing) AI planning. Here, we consider the construction of sequential planner portfolios for (domain- independent) optimal planning. Specifically, we introduce four techniques (three of which are dynamic) for per-instance planner schedule generation using problem instance features, and investigate the usefulness of a range of static and dynamic techniques for combining planners. Our extensive experimental analysis demonstrates the benefits of using static and dynamic sequential portfolios for optimal planning, and provides insights on the most suitable conditions for their fruitful exploitation

Trapped in the Greenhouse?: Regulating Carbon Dioxide after FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

An architecture for actionbased planning and cooperation between multiple AI-agents based on the GOAP-architecture was developed together with a system to be used in advanced AI-courses at Linköping unversity. The architecture was implemented in this system to show the possibilities of our work

The International planning competition series and empirical evaluation of AI planning systems

In this paper we consider the role of the International Planning Competition series in the evaluation of planners, both directly through the events themselves, and indirectly through the creation of resources and infrastructure. We also consider the problem of evaluation based on data collected both in the competitions and otherwise and examine some of the issues that arise in attempting to formulate and test hypotheses around the data