PDDL2.1: An extension of PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains

In recent years research in the planning community has moved increasingly towards application of planners to realistic problems involving both time and many types of resources. For example, interest in planning demonstrated by the space research community has inspired work in observation scheduling, planetary rover ex ploration and spacecraft control domains. Other temporal and resource-intensive domains including logistics planning, plant control and manufacturing have also helped to focus the community on the modelling and reasoning issues that must be confronted to make planning technology meet the challenges of application. The International Planning Competitions have acted as an important motivating force behind the progress that has been made in planning since 1998. The third competition (held in 2002) set the planning community the challenge of handling time and numeric resources. This necessitated the development of a modelling language capable of expressing temporal and numeric properties of planning domains. In this paper we describe the language, PDDL2.1, that was used in the competition. We describe the syntax of the language, its formal semantics and the validation of concurrent plans. We observe that PDDL2.1 has considerable modelling power --- exceeding the capabilities of current planning technology --- and presents a number of important challenges to the research community

Validating plans with continuous effects

A critical element in the use of PDDL2.1, the modelling language developed for the International Planning Competition series, has been the common understanding of the semantics of the language. The fact that this has been implemented in plan validation software was vital to the progress of the competition. However, the validation of plans using actions with continuous effects presents new challenges (that precede the challenges presented by planning with those effects). In this paper we review the need for continuous effects, their semantics and the problems that arise in validation of plans that include them. We report our progress in implementing the semantics in an extended version of the plan validation software

Exploiting a graphplan framework in temporal planning

Graphplan (Blum and Furst 1995) has proved a popular and successful basis for a succession of extensions. An extension to handle temporal planning is a natural one to consider, because of the seductively time-like structure of the layers in the plan graph. TGP (Smith and Weld 1999) and TPSys (Garrido, Onaindía, and Barber 2001; Garrido, Fox, and Long 2002) are both examples of temporal planners that have exploited the Graphplan foundation. However, both of these systems (including both versions of TPSys) exploit the graph to represent a uniform flow of time. In this paper we describe an alternative approach, in which the graph is used to represent the purely logical structuring of the plan, with temporal constraints being managed separately (although not independently). The approach uses a linear constraint solver to ensure that temporal durations are correctly respected. The resulting planner offers an interesting alternative to the other approaches, offering an important extension in expressive power

CASP Solutions for Planning in Hybrid Domains

CASP is an extension of ASP that allows for numerical constraints to be added in the rules. PDDL+ is an extension of the PDDL standard language of automated planning for modeling mixed discrete-continuous dynamics. In this paper, we present CASP solutions for dealing with PDDL+ problems, i.e., encoding from PDDL+ to CASP, and extensions to the algorithm of the EZCSP CASP solver in order to solve CASP programs arising from PDDL+ domains. An experimental analysis, performed on well-known linear and non-linear variants of PDDL+ domains, involving various configurations of the EZCSP solver, other CASP solvers, and PDDL+ planners, shows the viability of our solution.Comment: Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains

In recent years research in the planning community has moved increasingly toward s application of planners to realistic problems involving both time and many typ es of resources. For example, interest in planning demonstrated by the space res earch community has inspired work in observation scheduling, planetary rover ex ploration and spacecraft control domains. Other temporal and resource-intensive domains including logistics planning, plant control and manufacturing have also helped to focus the community on the modelling and reasoning issues that must be confronted to make planning technology meet the challenges of application. The International Planning Competitions have acted as an important motivating fo rce behind the progress that has been made in planning since 1998. The third com petition (held in 2002) set the planning community the challenge of handling tim e and numeric resources. This necessitated the development of a modelling langua ge capable of expressing temporal and numeric properties of planning domains. In this paper we describe the language, PDDL2.1, that was used in the competition. We describe the syntax of the language, its formal semantics and the validation of concurrent plans. We observe that PDDL2.1 has considerable modelling power --- exceeding the capabilities of current planning technology --- and presents a number of important challenges to the research community

PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains

In recent years research in the planning community has moved increasingly toward s application of planners to realistic problems involving both time and many typ es of resources. For example, interest in planning demonstrated by the space res earch community has inspired work in observation scheduling, planetary rover ex ploration and spacecraft control domains. Other temporal and resource-intensive domains including logistics planning, plant control and manufacturing have also helped to focus the community on the modelling and reasoning issues that must be confronted to make planning technology meet the challenges of application. The International Planning Competitions have acted as an important motivating fo rce behind the progress that has been made in planning since 1998. The third com petition (held in 2002) set the planning community the challenge of handling tim e and numeric resources. This necessitated the development of a modelling langua ge capable of expressing temporal and numeric properties of planning domains. In this paper we describe the language, PDDL2.1, that was used in the competition. We describe the syntax of the language, its formal semantics and the validation of concurrent plans. We observe that PDDL2.1 has considerable modelling power --- exceeding the capabilities of current planning technology --- and presents a number of important challenges to the research community

Short Term Unit Commitment as a Planning Problem

‘Unit Commitment’, setting online schedules for generating units in a power system to ensure supply meets demand, is integral to the secure, efficient, and economic daily operation of a power system. Conflicting desires for security of supply at minimum cost complicate this. Sustained research has produced methodologies within a guaranteed bound of optimality, given sufficient computing time. Regulatory requirements to reduce emissions in modern power systems have necessitated increased renewable generation, whose output cannot be directly controlled, increasing complex uncertainties. Traditional methods are thus less efficient, generating more costly schedules or requiring impractical increases in solution time. Meta-Heuristic approaches are studied to identify why this large body of work has had little industrial impact despite continued academic interest over many years. A discussion of lessons learned is given, and should be of interest to researchers presenting new Unit Commitment approaches, such as a Planning implementation. Automated Planning is a sub-field of Artificial Intelligence, where a timestamped sequence of predefined actions manipulating a system towards a goal configuration is sought. This differs from previous Unit Commitment formulations found in the literature. There are fewer times when a unit’s online status switches, representing a Planning action, than free variables in a traditional formulation. Efficient reasoning about these actions could reduce solution time, enabling Planning to tackle Unit Commitment problems with high levels of renewable generation. Existing Planning formulations for Unit Commitment have not been found. A successful formulation enumerating open challenges would constitute a good benchmark problem for the field. Thus, two models are presented. The first demonstrates the approach’s strength in temporal reasoning over numeric optimisation. The second balances this but current algorithms cannot handle it. Extensions to an existing algorithm are proposed alongside a discussion of immediate challenges and possible solutions. This is intended to form a base from which a successful methodology can be developed

Modelling Mixed Discrete-Continuous Domains for Planning

In this paper we present pddl+, a planning domain description language for modelling mixed discrete-continuous planning domains. We describe the syntax and modelling style of pddl+, showing that the language makes convenient the modelling of complex time-dependent effects. We provide a formal semantics for pddl+ by mapping planning instances into constructs of hybrid automata. Using the syntax of HAs as our semantic model we construct a semantic mapping to labelled transition systems to complete the formal interpretation of pddl+ planning instances. An advantage of building a mapping from pddl+ to HA theory is that it forms a bridge between the Planning and Real Time Systems research communities. One consequence is that we can expect to make use of some of the theoretical properties of HAs. For example, for a restricted class of HAs the Reachability problem (which is equivalent to Plan Existence) is decidable. pddl+ provides an alternative to the continuous durative action model of pddl2.1, adding a more flexible and robust model of time-dependent behaviour