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

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

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

Comparing and Integrating Constraint Programming and Temporal Planning for Quantum Circuit Compilation

Recently, the makespan-minimization problem of compiling a general class of quantum algorithms into near-term quantum processors has been introduced to the AI community. The research demonstrated that temporal planning is a strong solution approach for the studied class of quantum circuit compilation (QCC) problems. In this paper, we explore the use of methods from operations research, specifically constraint programming (CP), as an alternative and complementary approach to temporal planning. We also extend previous work by introducing two new problem variations that incorporate important characteristics identified by the quantum computing community. We apply temporal planning and CP to the baseline and extended QCC problems as both stand-alone and hybrid approaches. The hybrid method uses solutions found by temporal planning to warm-start CP, leveraging the ability of temporal planning to find satisficing solutions to problems with a high degree of task optionality, an area that CP typically struggles with. These solutions are then used to seed the CP formulation which significantly benefits from inferred bounds on planning horizon and task counts provided by the warm-start. Our extensive empirical evaluation indicates that while stand-alone CP is not competitive with temporal planning, except for the smallest problems, CP in a hybrid setting is beneficial for all temporal planners in all problem classes

Processes and continuous change in a SAT-based planner

AbstractThe TM-LPSAT planner can construct plans in domains containing atomic actions and durative actions; events and processes; discrete, real-valued, and interval-valued fluents; reusable resources, both numeric and interval-valued; and continuous linear change to quantities. It works in three stages. In the first stage, a representation of the domain and problem in an extended version of PDDL+ is compiled into a system of Boolean combinations of propositional atoms and linear constraints over numeric variables. In the second stage, a SAT-based arithmetic constraint solver, such as LPSAT or MathSAT, is used to find a solution to the system of constraints. In the third stage, a correct plan is extracted from this solution. We discuss the structure of the planner and show how planning with time and metric quantities is compiled into a system of constraints. The proofs of soundness and completeness over a substantial subset of our extended version of PDDL+ are presented

Taming Numbers and Durations in the Model Checking Integrated Planning System

The Model Checking Integrated Planning System (MIPS) is a temporal least commitment heuristic search planner based on a flexible object-oriented workbench architecture. Its design clearly separates explicit and symbolic directed exploration algorithms from the set of on-line and off-line computed estimates and associated data structures. MIPS has shown distinguished performance in the last two international planning competitions. In the last event the description language was extended from pure propositional planning to include numerical state variables, action durations, and plan quality objective functions. Plans were no longer sequences of actions but time-stamped schedules. As a participant of the fully automated track of the competition, MIPS has proven to be a general system; in each track and every benchmark domain it efficiently computed plans of remarkable quality. This article introduces and analyzes the most important algorithmic novelties that were necessary to tackle the new layers of expressiveness in the benchmark problems and to achieve a high level of performance. The extensions include critical path analysis of sequentially generated plans to generate corresponding optimal parallel plans. The linear time algorithm to compute the parallel plan bypasses known NP hardness results for partial ordering by scheduling plans with respect to the set of actions and the imposed precedence relations. The efficiency of this algorithm also allows us to improve the exploration guidance: for each encountered planning state the corresponding approximate sequential plan is scheduled. One major strength of MIPS is its static analysis phase that grounds and simplifies parameterized predicates, functions and operators, that infers knowledge to minimize the state description length, and that detects domain object symmetries. The latter aspect is analyzed in detail. MIPS has been developed to serve as a complete and optimal state space planner, with admissible estimates, exploration engines and branching cuts. In the competition version, however, certain performance compromises had to be made, including floating point arithmetic, weighted heuristic search exploration according to an inadmissible estimate and parameterized optimization

ICAPS 2012. Proceedings of the third Workshop on the International Planning Competition

22nd International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. June 25-29, 2012, Atibaia, Sao Paulo (Brazil). Proceedings of the 3rd the International Planning CompetitionThe Academic Advising Planning Domain / Joshua T. Guerin, Josiah P. Hanna, Libby Ferland, Nicholas Mattei, and Judy Goldsmith. -- Leveraging Classical Planners through Translations / Ronen I. Brafman, Guy Shani, and Ran Taig. -- Advances in BDD Search: Filtering, Partitioning, and Bidirectionally Blind / Stefan Edelkamp, Peter Kissmann, and Álvaro Torralba. -- A Multi-Agent Extension of PDDL3.1 / Daniel L. Kovacs. -- Mining IPC-2011 Results / Isabel Cenamor, Tomás de la Rosa, and Fernando Fernández. -- How Good is the Performance of the Best Portfolio in IPC-2011? / Sergio Nuñez, Daniel Borrajo, and Carlos Linares López. -- “Type Problem in Domain Description!” or, Outsiders’ Suggestions for PDDL Improvement / Robert P. Goldman and Peter KellerEn prens