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

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

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

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

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

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