Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discovering relational and numerical expressions from plan traces for learning action models

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a domain learning process build on a machine learning-based process that, starting from plan traces with (partially known) intermediate states, returns a planning domain with numeric predicates, and expressive logical/arithmetic relations between domain predicates written in the planning domain definition language (PDDL). The novelty of our approach is that it can discover relations with little information about the ontology of the target domain to be learned. This is achieved by applying a selection of preprocessing, regression, and classification techniques to infer information from the input plan traces. These techniques are used to prepare the planning data, discover relational/numeric expressions, or extract the preconditions and effects of the domain’s actions. Our solution was evaluated using several metrics from the literature, taking as experimental data plan traces obtained from several domains from the International Planning Competition. The experiments demonstrate that our proposal—even with high levels of incompleteness—correctly learns a wide variety of domains discovering relational/arithmetic expressions, showing F-Score values above 0.85 and obtaining valid domains in most of the experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Data used in experimentation are available at http://www.icaps-conference.org/index.php/Main/Competitions

Code Availability

Code presented in this work is available in https://github.com/Leontes/PlanMiner

References

  1. Aineto D, Jiménez S, Onaindia E (2018) Learning strips action models with classical planning. In: International conference on automated planning and scheduling, ICAPS-18

  2. Aineto D, Celorrio SJ, Onaindia E (2019) Learning action models with minimal observability. Artif Intell 275:104–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2019.05.003. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370218304259

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Cabot J, Gogolla M (2012) Object constraint language (ocl): a definitive guide. In: International school on formal methods for the design of computer, communication and software systems. Springer, pp 58–90

  4. Chatterjee S, Hadi AS (2015) Regression analysis by example, Wiley, New York

  5. Cook SA (1971) The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, pp 151–158

  6. Cresswell SN, McCluskey TL, West MM (2013) Acquiring planning domain models using locm. Knowl Eng Rev 28(2):195–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888912000422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fernandez A, Herrera F, Cordon O, Jose del Jesus M, Marcelloni F (2019) Evolutionary fuzzy systems for explainable artificial intelligence: why, when, what for, and where to? IEEE Comput Intell Mag 14 (1):69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fox M, Long D (2002) Pddl+: modeling continuous time dependent effects. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international NASA workshop on planning and scheduling for space, vol 4, p 34

  9. García D, Gámez JC, González A, Pérez R (2015) An interpretability improvement for fuzzy rule bases obtained by the iterative rule learning approach. Int J Approx Reason 67(C):37–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2015.09.001

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, Mcdermott D, Ram A, Veloso M, Weld D, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL—the planning domain definition language. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.37.212

  11. Gregory P, Lindsay A (2016) Domain model acquisition in domains with action costs. In: ICAPS, pp 149–157

  12. Hansen P, Jaumard B (1990) Algorithms for the maximum satisfiability problem. Computing 44(4):279–303

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Hart PE, Nilsson NJ, Raphael B (1968) A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans Syst Sci Cybern 4(2):100–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoffmann J (2003) The metric-FF planning system: translating “ignoring delete lists” to numeric state variables. Artif Intell Res 20:291–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Howey R, Long D (2003) Val’s progress: the automatic validation tool for pddl2.1 used in the international planning competition. In: Proceedings of the ICAPS 2003 workshop on the competition: impact, organization, evaluation, benchmarks, Trento, pp 28–37

  16. Jilani R, Crampton A, Kitchin DE, Vallati M (2014) Automated knowledge engineering tools in planning: state-of-the-art and future challenges. Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling

  17. Jiménez S, Rosa TDL, Fernández S, Fernández F, Borrajo D (2012) A review of machine learning for automated planning. Knowl Eng Rev 27(4):433–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kotsiantis SB, Zaharakis I, Pintelas P (2007) Supervised machine learning: a review of classification techniques. Emerg Artif Intell Appl Comput Eng 160:3–24

    Google Scholar 

  19. Koza JR (1994) Genetic programming as a means for programming computers by natural selection. Stat Comput 4(2):87–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lanchas J, Jiménez S, Fernández F, Borrajo D (2007) Learning action durations from executions. In: Proceedings of the ICAPS. Citeseer

  21. Long D, Fox M (2003) The 3rd international planning competition: results and analysis. Artif Intell Res 20:1–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Matloff NS (2009) From algorithms to Z-Scores: probabilistic and statistical modeling in computer science. University Press of Florida, Gainesville

  23. McCluskey TL, Richardson NE, Simpson RM (2002) An interactive method for inducing operator descriptions. In: AIPS, pp 121–130

  24. McCluskey TL, Cresswell S, Richardson NE, West MM (2009) Automated acquisition of action knowledge. In: International conference on agents and artificial intelligence (ICAART)

  25. Mitchell TM (1997) Machine learning, 1 edn. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nau D, Ghallab M, Traverso P (2004) Automated planning: theory & practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Quinlan JR (1990) Learning logical definitions from relations. Mach Learn 5(3):239–266

    Google Scholar 

  28. Russell SJ, Norvig P (2016) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach Malaysia. Pearson Education Limited

  29. Suárez-Hernández A, Segovia-Aguas J, Torras C, Alenyà G (2020) Strips action discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.11457

  30. Var I (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Vectors 8(2):125–136

    Google Scholar 

  31. Worm T, Chiu K (2013) Prioritized grammar enumeration: symbolic regression by dynamic programming. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 1021–1028

  32. Zhuo HH, Yang Q, Hu DH, Li L (2010) Learning complex action models with quantifiers and logical implications. Artif Intell 174(18):1540–1569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2010.09.007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370210001566

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Yang Q, Wu K, Jiang Y (2007) Learning action models from plan examples using weighted MAX-SAT. Artif Intell J 107– 143

  34. Zhuo HH, Nguyen T, Kambhampati S (2013) Refining incomplete planning domain models through plan traces. In: Twenty-third international joint conference on artificial intelligence

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is being developed and partially funded by the Spanish MINECO R&D Project TIN2015-71618-R and RTI2018-098460-B-I00

Funding

This research is being developed and partially funded by the Spanish MINECO R&D Project TIN2015-71618-R and RTI2018-098460-B-I00

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

    José Á. Segura-Muros, Raúl Pérez & Juan Fernández-Olivares

Authors
  1. José Á. Segura-Muros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raúl Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Fernández-Olivares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Á. Segura-Muros.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

Authors state that there is no conflict of interest

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Segura-Muros, J.Á., Pérez, R. & Fernández-Olivares, J. Discovering relational and numerical expressions from plan traces for learning action models. Appl Intell 51, 7973–7989 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02232-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02232-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation