Compiling Causal Theories to Successor State Axioms and STRIPS-Like Systems

We describe a system for specifying the effects of actions. Unlike those commonly used in AI planning, our system uses an action description language that allows one to specify the effects of actions using domain rules, which are state constraints that can entail new action effects from old ones. Declaratively, an action domain in our language corresponds to a nonmonotonic causal theory in the situation calculus. Procedurally, such an action domain is compiled into a set of logical theories, one for each action in the domain, from which fully instantiated successor state-like axioms and STRIPS-like systems are then generated. We expect the system to be a useful tool for knowledge engineers writing action specifications for classical AI planning systems, GOLOG systems, and other systems where formal specifications of actions are needed

Cognitive Modeling for Computer Animation: A Comparative Review

Cognitive modeling is a provocative new paradigm that paves the way towards intelligent graphical characters by providing them with logic and reasoning skills. Cognitively empowered self-animating characters will see in the near future a widespread use in the interactive game, multimedia, virtual reality and production animation industries. This review covers three recently-published papers from the field of cognitive modeling for computer animation. The approaches and techniques employed are very different. The cognition model in the first paper is built on top of Soar, which is intended as a general cognitive architecture for developing systems that exhibit intelligent behaviors. The second paper uses an active plan tree and a plan library to achieve the fast and robust reactivity to the environment changes. The third paper, based on an AI formalism known as the situation calculus, develops a cognitive modeling language called CML and uses it to specify a behavior outline or sketch plan to direct the characters in terms of goals. Instead of presenting each paper in isolation then comparatively analyzing them, we take a top-down approach by first classifying the field into three different categories and then attempting to put each paper into a proper category. Hopefully in this way it can provide a more cohesive, systematic view of cognitive modeling approaches employed in computer animation

Extending classical planning with state constraints: Heuristics and search for optimal planning

We present a principled way of extending a classical AI planning formalism with systems of state constraints, which relate - sometimes determine - the values of variables in each state traversed by the plan. This extension occupies an attractive middle ground between expressivity and complexity. It enables modelling a new range of problems, as well as formulating more efficient models of classical planning problems. An example of the former is planning-based control of networked physical systems - power networks, for example - in which a local, discrete control action can have global effects on continuous quantities, such as altering flows across the entire network. At the same time, our extension remains decidable as long as the satisfiability of sets of state constraints is decidable, including in the presence of numeric state variables, and we demonstrate that effective techniques for cost-optimal planning known in the classical setting - in particular, relaxation-based admissible heuristics - can be adapted to the extended formalism. In this paper, we apply our approach to constraints in the form of linear or non-linear equations over numeric state variables, but the approach is independent of the type of state constraints, as long as there exists a procedure that decides their consistency. The planner and the constraint solver interact through a well-defined, narrow interface, in which the solver requires no specialisation to the planning contextThis work was supported by ARC project DP140104219, “Robust AI Planning for Hybrid Systems”, and in part by ARO grant W911NF1210471 and ONR grant N000141210430

Optimal Planning with State Constraints

In the classical planning model, state variables are assigned values in the initial state and remain unchanged unless explicitly affected by action effects. However, some properties of states are more naturally modelled not as direct effects of actions but instead as derived, in each state, from the primary variables via a set of rules. We refer to those rules as state constraints. The two types of state constraints that will be discussed here are numeric state constraints and logical rules that we will refer to as axioms. When using state constraints we make a distinction between primary variables, whose values are directly affected by action effects, and secondary variables, whose values are determined by state constraints. While primary variables have finite and discrete domains, as in classical planning, there is no such requirement for secondary variables. For example, using numeric state constraints allows us to have secondary variables whose values are real numbers. We show that state constraints are a construct that lets us combine classical planning methods with specialised solvers developed for other types of problems. For example, introducing numeric state constraints enables us to apply planning techniques in domains involving interconnected physical systems, such as power networks. To solve these types of problems optimally, we adapt commonly used methods from optimal classical planning, namely state-space search guided by admissible heuristics. In heuristics based on monotonic relaxation, the idea is that in a relaxed state each variable assumes a set of values instead of just a single value. With state constraints, the challenge becomes to evaluate the conditions, such as goals and action preconditions, that involve secondary variables. We employ consistency checking tools to evaluate whether these conditions are satisfied in the relaxed state. In our work with numerical constraints we use linear programming, while with axioms we use answer set programming and three value semantics. This allows us to build a relaxed planning graph and compute constraint-aware version of heuristics based on monotonic relaxation. We also adapt pattern database heuristics. We notice that an abstract state can be thought of as a state in the monotonic relaxation in which the variables in the pattern hold only one value, while the variables not in the pattern simultaneously hold all the values in their domains. This means that we can apply the same technique for evaluating conditions on secondary variables as we did for the monotonic relaxation and build pattern databases similarly as it is done in classical planning. To make better use of our heuristics, we modify the A* algorithm by combining two techniques that were previously used independently – partial expansion and preferred operators. Our modified algorithm, which we call PrefPEA, is most beneficial in cases where heuristic is expensive to compute, but accurate, and states have many successors

Action, Time and Space in Description Logics

Description Logics (DLs) are a family of logic-based knowledge representation (KR) formalisms designed to represent and reason about static conceptual knowledge in a semantically well-understood way. On the other hand, standard action formalisms are KR formalisms based on classical logic designed to model and reason about dynamic systems. The largest part of the present work is dedicated to integrating DLs with action formalisms, with the main goal of obtaining decidable action formalisms with an expressiveness significantly beyond propositional. To this end, we offer DL-tailored solutions to the frame and ramification problem. One of the main technical results is that standard reasoning problems about actions (executability and projection), as well as the plan existence problem are decidable if one restricts the logic for describing action pre- and post-conditions and the state of the world to decidable Description Logics. A smaller part of the work is related to decidable extensions of Description Logics with concrete datatypes, most importantly with those allowing to refer to the notions of space and time

Optimal Planning Modulo Theories

Planning for real-world applications requires algorithms and tools with the ability to handle the complexity such scenarios entail. However, meeting the needs of such applications poses substantial challenges, both representational and algorithmic. On the one hand, expressive languages are needed to build faithful models. On the other hand, efficient solving techniques that can support these languages need to be devised. A response to this challenge is underway, and the past few years witnessed a community effort towards more expressive languages, including decidable fragments of first-order theories. In this work we focus on planning with arithmetic theories and propose Optimal Planning Modulo Theories, a framework that attempts to provide efficient means of dealing with such problems. Leveraging generic Optimization Modulo Theories (OMT) solvers, we first present domain-specific encodings for optimal planning in complex logistic domains. We then present a more general, domain- independent formulation that allows to extend OMT planning to a broader class of well-studied numeric problems in planning. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time OMT procedures are employed in domain-independent planning

Planning as Quantified Boolean Formulae

This work explores the idea of classical Planning as Quantified Boolean Formulae. Planning as Satisfiability (SAT) is a popular approach to Planning and has been explored in detail producing many compact and efficient encodings, Planning-specific solver implementations and innovative new constraints. However, Planning as Quantified Boolean Formulae (QBF) has been relegated to conformant Planning approaches, with the exception of one encoding that has not yet been investigated in detail. QBF is a promising setting for Planning given that the problems have the same complexity. This work introduces two approaches for translating bounded propositional reachability problems into QBF. Both exploit the expressivity of the binarytree structure of the QBF problem to produce encodings that are as small as logarithmic in the size of the instance and thus exponentially smaller than the corresponding SAT encoding with the same bound. The first approach builds on the iterative squaring formulation of Rintanen; the intuition behind the idea is to recursively fold the plan around the midpoint, reducing the number of time-steps that need to be described from n to log₂n. The second approach exploits domain-level lifting to achieve significant improvements in efficiency. Experimentation was performed to compare our formulation of the first approach with the previous formulation, and to compare both approaches with comparative and state-of-the-art SAT approaches. Results presented in this work show that our formulation of the first approach is an improvement over the previous, and that both approaches produce encodings that are indeed much smaller than corresponding SAT encodings, in both terms of encoding size and memory used during solving. Evidence is also provided to show that the first approach is feasible, if not yet competitive with the state-of-the-art, and that the second approach produces superior encodings to the SAT encodings when the domain is suited to domain-level lifting.This work explores the idea of classical Planning as Quantified Boolean Formulae. Planning as Satisfiability (SAT) is a popular approach to Planning and has been explored in detail producing many compact and efficient encodings, Planning-specific solver implementations and innovative new constraints. However, Planning as Quantified Boolean Formulae (QBF) has been relegated to conformant Planning approaches, with the exception of one encoding that has not yet been investigated in detail. QBF is a promising setting for Planning given that the problems have the same complexity. This work introduces two approaches for translating bounded propositional reachability problems into QBF. Both exploit the expressivity of the binarytree structure of the QBF problem to produce encodings that are as small as logarithmic in the size of the instance and thus exponentially smaller than the corresponding SAT encoding with the same bound. The first approach builds on the iterative squaring formulation of Rintanen; the intuition behind the idea is to recursively fold the plan around the midpoint, reducing the number of time-steps that need to be described from n to log₂n. The second approach exploits domain-level lifting to achieve significant improvements in efficiency. Experimentation was performed to compare our formulation of the first approach with the previous formulation, and to compare both approaches with comparative and state-of-the-art SAT approaches. Results presented in this work show that our formulation of the first approach is an improvement over the previous, and that both approaches produce encodings that are indeed much smaller than corresponding SAT encodings, in both terms of encoding size and memory used during solving. Evidence is also provided to show that the first approach is feasible, if not yet competitive with the state-of-the-art, and that the second approach produces superior encodings to the SAT encodings when the domain is suited to domain-level lifting

Argumentation-based methods for multi-perspective cooperative planning

Through cooperation, agents can transcend their individual capabilities and achieve goals that would be unattainable otherwise. Existing multiagent planning work considers each agent’s action capabilities, but does not account for distributed knowledge and the incompatible views agents may have of the planning domain. These divergent views can be a result of faulty sensors, local and incomplete knowledge, and outdated information, or simply because each agent has conducted different inferences and their beliefs are not aligned. This thesis is concerned with Multi-Perspective Cooperative Planning (MPCP), the problem of synthesising a plan for multiple agents which share a goal but hold different views about the state of the environment and the specification of the actions they can perform to affect it. Reaching agreement on a mutually acceptable plan is important, since cautious autonomous agents will not subscribe to plans that they individually believe to be inappropriate or even potentially hazardous. We specify the MPCP problem by adapting standard set-theoretic planning notation. Based on argumentation theory we define a new notion of plan acceptability, and introduce a novel formalism that combines defeasible logic programming and situation calculus that enables the succinct axiomatisation of contradictory planning theories and allows deductive argumentation-based inference. Our work bridges research in argumentation, reasoning about action and classical planning. We present practical methods for reasoning and planning with MPCP problems that exploit the inherent structure of planning domains and efficient planning heuristics. Finally, in order to allow distribution of tasks, we introduce a family of argumentation-based dialogue protocols that enable the agents to reach agreement on plans in a decentralised manner. Based on the concrete foundation of deductive argumentation we analytically investigate important properties of our methods illustrating the correctness of the proposed planning mechanisms. We also empirically evaluate the efficiency of our algorithms in benchmark planning domains. Our results illustrate that our methods can synthesise acceptable plans within reasonable time in large-scale domains, while maintaining a level of expressiveness comparable to that of modern automated planning