Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 63–89 | Cite as

Linear temporal logic as an executable semantics for planning languages

  • Marta Cialdea Mayer
  • Carla Limongelli
  • Andrea Orlandini
  • Valentina Poggioni
Original Article

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to artificial intelligence planning based on linear temporal logic (LTL). A simple and easy-to-use planning language is described, Planning Domain Description Language with control Knowledge (PDDL-K), which allows one to specify a planning problem together with heuristic information that can be of help for both pruning the search space and finding better quality plans. The semantics of the language is given in terms of a translation into a set of LTL formulae. Planning is then reduced to “executing” the LTL encoding, i.e. to model search in LTL. The feasibility of the approach has been successfully tested by means of the system Pdk, an implementation of the proposed method.

Applied temporal logic Artificial intelligence planning Knowledge representation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, J. (1991a). Planning as temporal reasoning. In Proceedings of the second Int. conf. on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-91). pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J. F. (1991b). Temporal reasoning and planning. In J. F. Allen, H. A. Kautz, R. N. Pelavin, & J. D. Tenenberg (Eds.), Reasoning about plans (pp. 1–68). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Bacchus, F. and Kabanza, F. (1996). Planning for temporally extended goals. In Proceedings of the 13th national conf. on artificial intelligence (AAAI-96). pp. 1215–1222.Google Scholar
  4. Bacchus, F., & Kabanza, F. (2000). ‘Using temporal logics to express earch control knowledge for planning’. Artificial Intelligence, 16, 123–191.Google Scholar
  5. Bacchus, F., & Ady, M. (1999). Precondition control. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  6. Baral, C. (2003). Knowledge representation, reasoning, and declarative problem solving with answer sets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barringer, H., Fisher, M., Gabbay, D., Gough, G., & Owens, R. (1989). MetateM: a framework for programming in temporal logic’. In Proceedings of REX workshop on stepwise refinement of distributed systems: models, formalisms, correctness, Vol. 430 of LNCS. pp. 94–129.Google Scholar
  8. Barringer, H., Fisher, M., Gabbay, D., & Hunter, A. (1991). Meta-reasoning in executable temporal logic. In Proceedings of the second int. conf. on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-91). pp. 40–49.Google Scholar
  9. Bibel, W. (1997). Let’s plan it deductively. In Proceedings of the 15th int. joint conf. on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-97), Vol. 2. pp. 1549–1562.Google Scholar
  10. Bylander, T. (1991). Complexity results for planning. In Proceedingsof the 12th int. joint conf. on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-91). pp. 274–279.Google Scholar
  11. Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., & Vardi, M. Y. (2002). Reasoning about actions and planning in LTL action theories. In Proceedings of the 8th int. conf. on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2002). pp. 593–602.Google Scholar
  12. Cerrito, S., & Cialdea Mayer, M. (1998). Using linear temporal logic to model and solve planning problems. In F. Giunghiglia (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th int.conf. on artificial intelligence: methodology, systems, applications (AIMSA’98). pp. 141–152.Google Scholar
  13. Cesta, A., & Oddi, A. (1996). DDL.1: a formal description of a constraint representaton language for physical domains. In M. Ghallab, & A. Milani (Eds.), New direction in AI planning, pp. 341–352. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cialdea Mayer, M., Orlandini, A., Balestreri, G., & Limongelli, C. (2000). A planner fully based on linear time logic. In S. Chien, S. Kambhampati, & C. Knoblock (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th int. conf. on artificial intelligence planning and scheduling (AIPS-2000). pp. 347–354.Google Scholar
  15. Doherty P., Kvarnström J. (2001). TALplanner: a temporal logic based planner. AI Magazine 22: 95–102Google Scholar
  16. Erol, K., Hendler, J., & Nau, D. S. (1994). HTN planning: complexity and expressivity. In Proceedings of the 12th national conf. on artificial intelligence (AAAI-94). pp. 1123–1128Google Scholar
  17. Fikes R.E., Nilsson N. (1971). STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4): 189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finzi, A., Pirri, F., & Reiter, R. (2000). Open world planning in the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the 17th conf. on artificial intelligence (AAAI-00) and of the 12th conf. on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (IAAI-00). pp. 754–760.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, M., & Owens, R. (1995). An introduction to executable modal and temporal logics. In M. Fisher, & R. Owens (Eds.), Executable modal and temporal logics (Proceedings of the IJCAI’93 Workshop), (Vol. 897 of LNAI). pp. 1–20. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Fox M., Long D. (2003). PDDL2.1: an extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 20, 61–124Google Scholar
  21. Geffner, H. (2002). Perspectives on artificial intelligence planning. In Proceedings of the 18th national conf. on artificial intelligence (AAAI-2002). pp. 1013–1023.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, Y.-C., Selman, B., & Kautz, H. A. (1999). Control knowledge in planning: benefits and tradeoffs. In Proceedings of the 16th national conf. on artificial intelligence (AAAI-99). pp. 511–517.Google Scholar
  23. Janssen, G. L. J. M. (1999). Logics for digital circuit verification. theory, Algorithms and applications. CIP-DATA Library Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  24. Kautz, H., McAllester, D., & Selman, B. (1996). Encoding plans in propositional logic. In Proceedings of the 5th int. conf. on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’96). pp. 374–384.Google Scholar
  25. Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (1992). Planning as satisfiability. In B. Neumann (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th european conf. on artificial intelligence (ECAI-92). pp. 360–363.Google Scholar
  26. Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (1998). BLACKBOX: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. In: Working notes of the AIPS-98 workshop on planning as combinatorial search. pp. 58–60.Google Scholar
  27. Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (1998b). The role of domain-specific knowledge in the planning as satisfiability framework. In Proceedings of the 4th int. conf. on artificial intelligence planning ystems (AIPS-98). pp. 181–189.Google Scholar
  28. Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (1999). Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning. In Proceedings of the 16th int. joint conf. on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-99). pp. 318–325.Google Scholar
  29. Koehler, J., & Treinen, R. (1995). Constraint deduction in an interval-based temporal logic. In M. Fisher, & R. Owens (Eds.), Executable modal and temporal logics, (Proceedings of the IJCAI’93 Workshop), Vol. 897 of LNAI. pp. 103–117.Google Scholar
  30. Levesque, H. (1996). What is planning in the presence of sensing?. In Proceedings of the 13th national conf. on artificial intelligence, AAAI-96. pp. 1139–1146.Google Scholar
  31. Lifschitz, V. (1999). Answer set planning. In Proceedings of the 16th int. conf. on logic programming (ICLP-1999). pp. 23–37.Google Scholar
  32. Masseron M., Tollu C., Vauzeilles J. (1993). Generating plans in linear logic: I. actions as proofs. Theoretical Computer Science, 113: 349–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from he standpoint of502 artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer, & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence, Vol 4. (pp. 463–502). Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pednault, E. (1989). ADL: exploiting the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the 6th int. conf. on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-89). pp. 324–332.Google Scholar
  35. Pistore, M., & Traverso, P. (2001). Planning as model checking for extended goals in non-deterministic domains. In Proceedings of the 17th int. joint conf. on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2001). pp. 479–486.Google Scholar
  36. Reiter, R. (1991). The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In V. Lifschitz (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and mathematical theory of computation: papers in honor of John McCarthy pp. 359–380. Newyork: (Academic Press).Google Scholar
  37. Reiter, R. (2001). Knowledge in action: logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rintanen J. (1999). Constructing conditional plans by a theorem-prover. Journal of Artificial Intellingence Research, 10, 323–352Google Scholar
  39. Rosenschein, S. J. (1981). Plan synthesis: a logical perspective. In: Proceedings of the 7th Int. joint conf. on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-81). pp. 331–337.Google Scholar
  40. Son, T., Baral, C., Tran, N., & McIlraith, S. (2005). Domain-dependent knowledge in answer set programming. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. To appear.Google Scholar
  41. Stephan, B., & Biundo, S. (1996). Deduction based refinement planning. In B. Drabble (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd int. conf. on artificial intelligence planning systems (AIPS-96). pp. 213–220.Google Scholar
  42. Subrahmanian, V. S., & Zaniolo, C. (1995). Relating stable models and AI planning domains. In Proceedings of the 12th int. conf. on logic programming (ICLP-1995). pp. 233–247.Google Scholar
  43. Wolper, P. (1985). The tableau method for temporal logic: an overview. Logique et Analyse, 28, 119–152.Google Scholar
  44. Yang Q. (1990). Formalizing planning knowledge for hierarchical planning. Computational Intelligence, 6, 12–24Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Cialdea Mayer
    • 1
  • Carla Limongelli
    • 1
  • Andrea Orlandini
    • 1
  • Valentina Poggioni
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e AutomazioneUniversità di Roma TreRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations