Learning STRIPS Action Models with Classical Planning

This paper presents a novel approach for learning STRIPS action models from examples that compiles this inductive learning task into a classical planning task. Interestingly, the compilation approach is flexible to different amounts of available input knowledge; the learning examples can range from a set of plans (with their corresponding initial and final states) to just a pair of initial and final states (no intermediate action or state is given). Moreover, the compilation accepts partially specified action models and it can be used to validate whether the observation of a plan execution follows a given STRIPS action model, even if this model is not fully specified.Comment: 8+1 pages, 4 figures, 6 table

Learning Neural-Symbolic Descriptive Planning Models via Cube-Space Priors: The Voyage Home (to STRIPS)

We achieved a new milestone in the difficult task of enabling agents to learn about their environment autonomously. Our neuro-symbolic architecture is trained end-to-end to produce a succinct and effective discrete state transition model from images alone. Our target representation (the Planning Domain Definition Language) is already in a form that off-the-shelf solvers can consume, and opens the door to the rich array of modern heuristic search capabilities. We demonstrate how the sophisticated innate prior we place on the learning process significantly reduces the complexity of the learned representation, and reveals a connection to the graph-theoretic notion of "cube-like graphs", thus opening the door to a deeper understanding of the ideal properties for learned symbolic representations. We show that the powerful domain-independent heuristics allow our system to solve visual 15-Puzzle instances which are beyond the reach of blind search, without resorting to the Reinforcement Learning approach that requires a huge amount of training on the domain-dependent reward information.Comment: Accepted in IJCAI 2020 main track (accept ratio 12.6%). The prequel of this paper, "The Search for STRIPS", can be found here: arXiv:1912.05492 . (update, 2020/08/11) We expanded the related work sectio

Learning Symbolic Operators for Task and Motion Planning

Robotic planning problems in hybrid state and action spaces can be solved by integrated task and motion planners (TAMP) that handle the complex interaction between motion-level decisions and task-level plan feasibility. TAMP approaches rely on domain-specific symbolic operators to guide the task-level search, making planning efficient. In this work, we formalize and study the problem of operator learning for TAMP. Central to this study is the view that operators define a lossy abstraction of the transition model of a domain. We then propose a bottom-up relational learning method for operator learning and show how the learned operators can be used for planning in a TAMP system. Experimentally, we provide results in three domains, including long-horizon robotic planning tasks. We find our approach to substantially outperform several baselines, including three graph neural network-based model-free approaches from the recent literature. Video: https://youtu.be/iVfpX9BpBRo Code: https://git.io/JCT0gComment: IROS 202

STRIPS Action Discovery

The problem of specifying high-level knowledge bases for planning becomes a hard task in realistic environments. This knowledge is usually handcrafted and is hard to keep updated, even for system experts. Recent approaches have shown the success of classical planning at synthesizing action models even when all intermediate states are missing. These approaches can synthesize action schemas in Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) from a set of execution traces each consisting, at least, of an initial and final state. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm to unsupervisedly synthesize STRIPS action models with a classical planner when action signatures are unknown. In addition, we contribute with a compilation to classical planning that mitigates the problem of learning static predicates in the action model preconditions, exploits the capabilities of SAT planners with parallel encodings to compute action schemas and validate all instances. Our system is flexible in that it supports the inclusion of partial input information that may speed up the search. We show through several experiments how learned action models generalize over unseen planning instances.Comment: Presented to Genplan 2020 workshop, held in the AAAI 2020 conference (https://sites.google.com/view/genplan20) (2021/03/05: included missing acknowledgments

A common framework for learning causality

[EN] Causality is a fundamental part of reasoning to model the physics of an application domain, to understand the behaviour of an agent or to identify the relationship between two entities. Causality occurs when an action is taken and may also occur when two happenings come undeniably together. The study of causal inference aims at uncovering causal dependencies among observed data and to come up with automated methods to find such dependencies. While there exist a broad range of principles and approaches involved in causal inference, in this position paper we argue that it is possible to unify different causality views under a common framework of symbolic learning.This work is supported by the Spanish MINECO project TIN2017-88476-C2-1-R. Diego Aineto is partially supported by the FPU16/03184 and Sergio Jimenez by the RYC15/18009, both programs funded by the Spanish government.Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E.; Aineto, D.; Jiménez-Celorrio, S. (2018). A common framework for learning causality. Progress in Artificial Intelligence. 7(4):351-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-018-0151-yS35135774Aineto, D., Jiménez, S., Onaindia, E.: Learning STRIPS action models with classical planning. In: International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS-18 (2018)Amir, E., Chang, A.: Learning partially observable deterministic action models. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 33, 349–402 (2008)Asai, M., Fukunaga, A.: Classical planning in deep latent space: bridging the subsymbolic–symbolic boundary. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-18 (2018)Cresswell, S.N., McCluskey, T.L., West, M.M.: Acquiring planning domain models using LOCM. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 28(02), 195–213 (2013)Ebert-Uphoff, I.: Two applications of causal discovery in climate science. In: Workshop Case Studies of Causal Discovery with Model Search (2013)Ebert-Uphoff, I., Deng, Y.: Causal discovery from spatio-temporal data with applications to climate science. In: 13th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, ICMLA 2014, Detroit, MI, USA, 3–6 December 2014, pp. 606–613 (2014)Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif. Intell. 153(1–2), 49–104 (2004)Halpern, J.Y., Pearl, J.: Causes and explanations: a structural-model approach. Part I: Causes. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 56(4), 843–887 (2005)Heckerman, D., Meek, C., Cooper, G.: A Bayesian approach to causal discovery. In: Jain, L.C., Holmes, D.E. (eds.) Innovations in Machine Learning. Theory and Applications, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, chapter 1, pp. 1–28. Springer, Berlin (2006)Li, J., Le, T.D., Liu, L., Liu, J., Jin, Z., Sun, B.-Y., Ma, S.: From observational studies to causal rule mining. ACM TIST 7(2), 14:1–14:27 (2016)Malinsky, D., Danks, D.: Causal discovery algorithms: a practical guide. Philos. Compass 13, e12470 (2018)McCain, N., Turner, H.: Causal theories of action and change. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Ninth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, AAAI 97, IAAI 97, 27–31 July 1997, Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 460–465 (1997)McCarthy, J.: Epistemological problems of artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, MA, USA, 22–25 August 1977, pp. 1038–1044 (1977)McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Mach. Intell. 4, 463–502 (1969)Pearl, J.: Reasoning with cause and effect. AI Mag. 23(1), 95–112 (2002)Pearl, J.: Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)Spirtes, C.G.P., Scheines, R.: Causation, Prediction and Search, 2nd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Spirtes, P., Zhang, K.: Causal discovery and inference: concepts and recent methodological advances. Appl. Inform. 3, 3 (2016)Thielscher, M.: Ramification and causality. Artif. Intell. 89(1–2), 317–364 (1997)Triantafillou, S., Tsamardinos, I.: Constraint-based causal discovery from multiple interventions over overlapping variable sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 16, 2147–2205 (2015)Yang, Q., Kangheng, W., Jiang, Y.: Learning action models from plan examples using weighted MAX-SAT. Artif. Intell. 171(2–3), 107–143 (2007)Zhuo, H.H., Kambhampati, S: Action-model acquisition from noisy plan traces. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-13, pp. 2444–2450. AAAI Press (2013

Classical Planning in Deep Latent Space

Current domain-independent, classical planners require symbolic models of the problem domain and instance as input, resulting in a knowledge acquisition bottleneck. Meanwhile, although deep learning has achieved significant success in many fields, the knowledge is encoded in a subsymbolic representation which is incompatible with symbolic systems such as planners. We propose Latplan, an unsupervised architecture combining deep learning and classical planning. Given only an unlabeled set of image pairs showing a subset of transitions allowed in the environment (training inputs), Latplan learns a complete propositional PDDL action model of the environment. Later, when a pair of images representing the initial and the goal states (planning inputs) is given, Latplan finds a plan to the goal state in a symbolic latent space and returns a visualized plan execution. We evaluate Latplan using image-based versions of 6 planning domains: 8-puzzle, 15-Puzzle, Blocksworld, Sokoban and Two variations of LightsOut.Comment: Under review at Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR

A Constraint-based Approach to Learn Temporal Features on Action Models from Multiple Plans

[EN] Learning in AI planning tries to recognize past conducts to predict features that help improve action models. We propose a constraint programming approach for learning the temporal features, i.e., the distribution of conditions/effects and durations, of actions in an expressive temporal planning model with overlapping actions, which makes it suitable for knowledge-based multi-agent systems. We automatically build a purely declarative formulation that models time-stamps for durative actions, causal link relationships, threats and effect interferences from an arbitrary number of input plans: from just a unique single trace to many. We accommodate different degrees of input knowledge and support a different range of expressiveness, subsuming the PDDL2.1 temporal semantics. The formulation is simple but effective, and is not only valid for learning, but also for plan validation, as shown in its evaluation that returns high precision and accuracy values.This work is supported by the Spanish MINECO project TIN2017-88476-C2-1-R.Garrido, A. (2022). A Constraint-based Approach to Learn Temporal Features on Action Models from Multiple Plans. Constraints. 27(1-2):134-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-022-09330-3134160271-2Geffner, H., & Bonet, B. (2013). A concise introduction to models and methods for automated planning. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 8(1), 1–141.Ghallab, M., Nau, D., & Traverso, P. (2004). Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Elsevier.Fox, M., & Long, D. (2003). PDDL2.1: An extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 20, 61–124.Howey, R., Long, D., & Fox, M. (2004). VAL: Automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using PDDL. In Proc. of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI-04) (pp. 294–301).Kambhampati, S. (2007). Model-lite planning for the web age masses: The challenges of planning with incomplete and evolving domain models. In Proc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-07), (Vol. 22(2) pp. 1601–1604).Zhuo, H.H., Yang, Q., Hu, D.H., & Li, L. (2010). Learning complex action models with quantifiers and logical implications. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1540–1569.Cushing, W., Kambhampati, S., Weld, D.S., & et al (2007). When is temporal planning really temporal?. In Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1852–1859). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Coles, A., Fox, M., Halsey, K., Long, D., & Smith, A. (2009). Managing concurrency in temporal planning using planner-scheduler interaction. Artificial Intelligence, 173(1), 1–44.Rintanen, J. (2015). Models of action concurrency in temporal planning. In Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2015), (Vol. 99 pp. 1659–1665).Baker, C.L., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J.B. (2009). Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition, 113, 329–349.Jiménez, S., De la Rosa, T., Fernández, S., Fernández, F., & Borrajo, D. (2012). A review of machine learning for automated planning. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 27(4), 433–467.Appiah, A.Y., Zhang, X., Ayawli, B.B.K., & Kyeremeh, F. (2019). Long short-term memory networks based automatic feature extraction for photovoltaic array fault diagnosis. IEEE Access, 7, 30089–30101.Jialin Pan, S., & Yang, Q. (2010). A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 22(10), 1345–1359.Kou, G., Yue, J., Ma, Y., Wang, Q., & Zhang, Z. (2019). SAR image invariant feature extraction by anisotropic diffusion and multi-gray level simplified PCNN. IEEE Access, 7, 47135–47142.Lauretti, C., Cordella, F., Ciancio, A.L., Trigili, E., Catalan, J.M., Badesa, F.J., Crea, S., Pagliara, S.M., Sterzi, S., Vitiello, N., Garcia Aracil, N., & Zollo, L. (2018). Learning by demonstration for motion planning of upper-limb exoskeletons. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 12, 1–5.Liu, L., Wang, S., Hu, B., Qiong, Q., & Rosenblum, D.S. (2018). Learning structures of interval-based bayesian networks in probabilistic generative model for human complex activity recognition. Pattern Recognition, 81, 545–561.Xu, Y., Tsujii, J., & Chang, E.I.-C. (2012). Named entity recognition of follow-up and time information in 20000 radiology reports. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(5), 792–799.Minaee, S., Kalchbrenner, N., Cambria, E., Nikzad, N., Chenaghlu, M., & Gao, J. Deep learning based text classification: a comprehensive review. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.03705.pdf.Zhao, W., Peng, H., Eger, S., Cambria, E., & Yang, M. (2019). Towards scalable and reliable capsule networks for challenging NLP applications. In Proc. of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1549–1559).Zhong, X., Cambria, E., & Hussain, A. (2020). Extracting time expressions and named entities with constituent-based tagging schemes. Cognitive Computation, 12, 844–862.Bonet, B., & Geffner, H. (2020). Learning first-order symbolic representations for planning from the structure of the state space. In Proc. of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2020) (pp. 2322–2329). IOS Press.Kucera, J., & Barták, R. (2018). LOUGA: learning planning operators using genetic algorithms. In Proc. of the Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (PKAW-18) (pp. 124–138).Mourão, K., Zettlemoyer, L.S., Petrick, R.P.A., & Steedman, M. (2012). Learning STRIPS operators from noisy and incomplete observations. In Proc. of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-12) (pp. 614–623).Yang, Q., Wu, K., & Jiang, Y. (2007). Learning action models from plan examples using weighted MAX-SAT. Artificial Intelligence, 171(2-3), 107–143.Zhuo, H.H., & Kambhampati, S. (2013). Action-model acquisition from noisy plan traces. In Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-13) (pp. 2444–2450).Arora, A., Fiorino, H., Pellier, D., Métivier, M., & Pesty, S. (2018). A review of learning planning action models. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 33.Aineto, D., Jiménez, S., & Onaindia, E. (2019). Learning action models with minimal observability. Artificial Intelligence, 275, 104–137.Amir, E., & Chang, A. (2008). Learning partially observable deterministic action models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 33, 349–402.Cresswell, S.N., McCluskey, T.L., & West, M.M. (2013). Acquiring planning domain models using LOCM. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 28(2), 195–213.Zhuo, H.H., & Kambhampati, S. (2017). Model-lite planning: case-based vs. model-based approaches. Artificial Intelligence, 246, 1–21.Zhuo, H.H., Nguyen, T.A., & Kambhampati, S. (2013). Refining incomplete planning domain models through plan traces. In Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-13) (pp. 2451–2458).Aineto, D., Jiménez, S., & Onaindia, E. (2018). Learning STRIPS action models with classical planning. In Proc. of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS-18) (pp. 399–407).Zhuo, H.H., Muñoz-Avila, H., & Yang, Q. (2014). Learning hierarchical task network domains from partially observed plan traces. Artificial Intelligence, 212, 134–157.Rodriguez, I., Bonet, B., Romero, J., & Geffner, H. (2021). Learning first-order representations for planning from black box states: New results. In Proc. of the 18th Int. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 539–548).Garrido, A., & Jimenez, S. (2020). Learning temporal action models via constraint programming. In Proc. of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2020) (pp. 2362–2369). IOS Press.McAllester, D., & Rosenblitt, D. (1991). Systematic nonlinear planning. In Proc. 9th Nat. Conference on AI (pp. 634–639). Anaheim, CA.Penberthy, J., & Weld, D.S. (1992). UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial-order planner for ADL. In Proc. Int. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 103–114). Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann.Vidal, V., & Geffner, H. (2006). Branching and pruning: an optimal temporal POCL planner based on constraint programming. Artificial Intelligence, 170, 298–335.Garrido, A., Arangu, M., & Onaindia, E. (2009). A constraint programming formulation for planning: from plan scheduling to plan generation. Journal of Scheduling, 12(3), 227–256.Booth, K.E.C., Minh Do, J., Beck, C., Rieffel, E.G., Venturelli, D., & Frank, J. (2018). Comparing and integrating constraint programming and temporal planning for quantum circuit compilation. In Proc. of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS-18) (pp. 366–374).Hoffmann, J., & Edelkamp, S. (2005). The deterministic part of IPC-4: an overview. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, 519–579.Walsh, T. (2000). SAT v CSP. In Proc. of the Int. Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-2000) (pp. 441–456).Gerevini, A., Saetti, A., & Serina, I. (2003). Planning through stochastic local search and temporal action graphs in LPG. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 20, 239–290.Jiménez, S., Jonsson, A., & Palacios, H. (2015). Temporal planning with required concurrency using classical planning. In Proc. of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS-15).Eyerich, P., Mattmüller, R., & Röger, G. (2009). Using the context-enhanced additive heuristic for temporal and numeric planning. In Proc. of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS-09).Marzal, E., Sebastia, L., & Onaindia, E. (2016). Temporal landmark graphs for solving overconstrained planning problems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 106, 14–25.Zhuo, H.H., & Yang, Q. (2014). Action-model acquisition for planning via transfer learning. Artificial Intelligence, 212, 80–103