A case-based approach to heuristic planning
Most of the great success of heuristic search as an approach to AI Planning is due to the right design of domain-independent heuristics. Although many heuristic planners perform reasonably well, the computational cost of computing the heuristic function in every search node is very high, causing the planner to scale poorly when increasing the size of the planning tasks. For tackling this problem, planners can incorporate additional domain-dependent heuristics in order to improve their performance. Learning-based planners try to automatically acquire these domain-dependent heuristics using previous solved problems. In this work, we present a case-based reasoning approach that learns abstracted state transitions that serve as domain control knowledge for improving the planning process. The recommendations from the retrieved cases are used as guidance for pruning or ordering nodes in different heuristic search algorithms applied to planning tasks. We show that the CBR guidance is appropriate for a considerable number of planning benchmarks.
KeywordsCase-based reasoning Automated planning Search algorithms
This work has been partially supported by the Spanish MEC projects PELEA: TIN2008-06701-C03-03 and PlanInteraction: TIN2011-27652-C03-02.
- 1.Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun 7(1):39–59 Google Scholar
- 2.Blum A, Furst M (1995) Fast planning through planning graph analysis. In: Mellish CS (ed) Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI-95, vol 2. Morgan Kaufmann, Montreal, pp 1636–1642 Google Scholar
- 4.Castillo L, Fernández-Olivares J, García-Pérez O, Palao F (2006) Bringing users and planning technology together. Experiences in siadex. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS 2006). AAAI Press, Menlo Park Google Scholar
- 5.Coles A, Fox M, Smith A (2006) A new local search algorithm for forward-chaining planning. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS-2007), Providence, RI, USA Google Scholar
- 7.De la Rosa T, Jiménez S, Borrajo D (2008) Learning relational decision trees for guiding heuristic planning. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on automated planning and scheduling Google Scholar
- 8.De la Rosa T, Jiménez S, García-Durán R, Fernández F, García-Olaya A, Borrajo D (2009) Three relational learning approaches for lookahead heuristic planning. In: Working notes of ICAPS 2009 workshop on planning and learning, pp 37–44 Google Scholar
- 11.Fox M, Long D (1998) The automatic inference of state invariants in tim. J Artif Intell Res 9:317–371 Google Scholar
- 12.Ghallab M, Nau D, Traverso P (2004) Automated planning, theory and practice. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo Google Scholar
- 17.Hogg C, Muñoz-Avila H, Kuter U (2008) HTN-MAKER: learning htns with minimal additional knowledge engineering required. In: Proceedings of the 20th AAAI conference. AAAI Press, Menlo Park Google Scholar
- 20.McGann C, Py F, Rajan K, Ryan H, Henthorn R (2008) Adaptative control for autonomous underwater vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI conference. AAAI Press, Menlo Park Google Scholar
- 21.Nayak P, Kurien J, Dorais G, Millar W, Rajan K, Kanefsky R (1999) Validating the ds-1 remote agent experiment. In: Artificial intelligence, robotics and automation in space Google Scholar
- 26.Vidal V (2004) A lookahead strategy for heuristic search planning. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on automated planning and scheduling, Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, pp 150–160 Google Scholar