KI - Künstliche Intelligenz

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 255–261 | Cite as

Is Model-Based Robot Programming a Mirage? A Brief Survey of AI Reasoning in Robotics

  • Federico Pecora
Technical Contribution


Researchers in AI and Robotics have in common the desire to “make robots intelligent”, evidence of which can be traced back to the earliest AI systems. One major contribution of AI to Robotics is the model-centered approach, whereby intelligence is the result of reasoning in models of the world which can be changed to suit different environments, physical capabilities, and tasks. Dually, robots have contributed to the formulation and resolution of challenging issues in AI, and are constantly eroding the modeling abstractions underlying AI problem solving techniques. Forty-eight years after the first AI-driven robot, this article provides an updated perspective on the successes and challenges which lie at the intersection of AI and Robotics.


Constraint Satisfaction Problem Linear Temporal Logic Plan Execution Satisfiability Modulo Theory Robot Behavior 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The Author wishes to thank Štefan Konečný, Masoumeh Mansouri and Alessandro Saffiotti for the many discussions and comments that have shaped the positions stated in this article, as well as Joachim Hertzberg, Fabien Lagriffoul and Benjamin Andres for useful comments on the text. This work is partially supported by EU-FP7 project RACE (grant no. 287752), and by Swedish Knowledge Foundation (KKS) project “Semantic Robot”.


  1. 1.
    Allen J (1984) Towards a general theory of action and time. Artif Intel 23(2):123–154CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balbiani P, Condotta J-F, Del Cerro LF (1999) A new tractable subclass of the rectangle algebra. In Proc. of 16th Int’l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), vol 1, pp 442–447Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrett C, Sebastiani R, Seshia SA, Tinelli C (2009) Satisfiability modulo theories. In A Biere, MJH Heule, H van Maaren, T Walsh (Eds), Handbook of satisfiability, ch 26, IOS Press, pp 825–885Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatia A, Maly MR, Kavraki LE, Vardi MY (2011) Motion planning with complex goals. Robot Autom Mag, IEEE, 18(3):55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohlken W, Neumann B, Hotz L, Koopmann P (2011) Ontology-based realtime activity monitoring using beam search. In Proc. of 8th Int’l Conf. on Computer Vision SystemsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bresina JL, Jónsson AK, Morris PH, Rajan K ( 2005) Activity planning for the mars exploration rovers. In Proc. of 15th Int’l Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cambon S, Alami R, Gravot F (2009) A hybrid approach to intricate motion, manipulation and task planning. Int’l J Robot Res 28:104–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cesta A, Oddi A, Smith SF (2002) A constraint-based method for project scheduling with time windows. J Heuristics 8(1):109–136CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohn AG, Renz J, Sridhar M (2012) Thinking inside the box: A comprehensive spatial representation for video analysis. In Proc. of 13th Int’l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and ReasoningGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colliot O, Camara O, Bloch I (2006) Integration of fuzzy spatial relations in deformable models-application to brain mri segmentation. Pattern Recogn 39(8):1401–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Moura L, Dutertre B, Shankar N (2007) A tutorial on satisfiability modulo theories. In Proc. of 19th Int’l Conf. on Computer Aided VerificationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Silva L, Pandey AK, Alami R (2013) An interface for interleaved symbolic-geometric planning and backtracking. In IEEE/RSJ Int’l Conf. on Intelligent Robots and SystemsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dechter R, Meiri I, Pearl J (1991) Temporal constraint networks. Artif Intel 49(1–3):61–95MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Di Rocco M, Pecora F, Saffiotti A (2013) When robots are late: Configuration planning for multiple robots with dynamic goals. In Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int’l Conf. on Intelligent Robots and SystemsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doherty P, Kvarnström J, Heintz F (2010) A temproal logic-based planning and execution monitoring framework for unmanned aircraft systems. J Autom Agents Multi-Agent Sys, 2(2)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dornhege C, Eyerich P, Keller T, Trüg S, Brenner M, Nebel B (2009) Semantic attachments for domain-independent planning systems. In Proc. of 19th Int’l Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), pp 114–121. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drakengren T, Jonsson P (1998) A complete classification of tractability in allen’s algebra relative to subsets of basic relations. Artif Intel 106(2):205–219MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erol K, Hendler J, Nau DS (1994) HTN Planning: Complexity and expressivity. In Proc. of 12th National Conf. on Artificial IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fikes RE, Hart PE, Nilsson NJ (1972) Learning and executing generalized robot plans. Artif Intel 3:251–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fikes RE, Nilsson NJ (1971) strips: A new approach to theorem proving in problem solving. Artif Intell 2:189–208CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fratini S, Pecora F, Cesta A (2008) Unifying planning and scheduling as timelines in a component-based perspective. Arch Control Sci 18(2):231–271MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gaschler A, Petrick RPA, Giuliani M, Rickert M, Knoll A (2013) Kvp: A knowledge of volumes approach to robot task planning. In Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int’l Conf. on Intelligent Robots and SystemsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghallab M, Nau DS, Traverso P (2004) Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gregory P, Long D, Fox M, Beck JC (2012) Planning modulo theories: extending the planning paradigm. In Proc. of Int. Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Havur G, Ozbilgin G, Erdem E, Patoglu V (2014) Geometric rearrangement of multiple movable objects on cluttered surfaces: A hybrid reasoning approach. In Proc. of IEEE Int’l Conf. on Robotics and AutomationGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jónsson AK, Morris PH, Muscettola N, Rajan K, Smith B (2000) Planning in interplanetary space: Theory and practice. In Int. Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling, pp 177–186Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jonsson P, Krokhin A (2004) Complexity classification in qualitative temporal constraint reasoning. Artif Intel 160(1–2):35–51MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaelbling LP, Lozano-Pérez T (2011) Hierarchical planning in the now. In Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Robotics and AutomationGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaelbling LP, Lozano-Pérez. T (2012) Unifying perception, estimation and action for mobile manipulation via belief space planning. In Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Robotics and AutomationGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Köckemann U, Karlsson L, Pecora F (2014) Grandpa hates robots—interaction constraints for planning in inhabited environments. In Proc. of AAAI Conf. on Artificial IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kupferman O, Vardi MY (2001) Model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods Sys Design 19(3):291–314MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lagriffoul F, Dimitrov D, Saffiotti A, Karlsson L (2012) Constraint propagation on interval bounds for dealing with geometric backtracking. In Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int’l Conf. on Intelligent Robots and SystemsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lifschitz V (2008) What is answer set programming? In Proc. of 23rd AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 1594–1597Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Loutfi A, Coradeschi S, Daoutis M, Melchert J (2008) Using knowledge representation for perceptual anchoring in a robotic system. Int’l J Artif Intel Tools 17(5):925–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mansouri M, Pecora F (2013) A representation for spatial reasoning in robotic planning. In Proc. of IROS Workshop on AI-based RoboticsGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mansouri M, Pecora F (2014) More knowledge on the table: planning with space, time and resources for robots. In Proc. of IEEE Int’l Conf. on Robotics and AutomationGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McGann C, Py F, Rajan K, Ryan J, Henthorn R (2008) Adaptive control for autonomous underwater vehicles. In Proc. of 23rd National Conf. on Artificial IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moffitt MD, Pollack ME (2006) Optimal rectangle packing: A meta-CSP approach. In Proc. of 16th Int’l Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mösenlechner L, Beetz M (2011) Parameterizing actions to have the appropriate effects. In Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int’l Conf. on Intelligent Robots and SystemsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mösenlechner L, Beetz M (2013) Fast temporal projection using accurate physics-based geometric reasoning. In Proc. of IEEE Int’l Conf. on Robotics and AutomationGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nedunuri S, Prabhu S, Moll M, Chaudhuri S, Kavraki LE (2014) SMT-based synthesis of integrated task and motion plans for mobile manipulation. In Proc. of IEEE Int’l Conf. on Robotics and AutomationGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pecora F, Cirillo M, Dell’Osa F, Ullberg J, Saffiotti A (2012) A constraint-based approach for proactive, context-aware human support. J Ambient Intel Smart Environ 4(4):347–367Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pecora F, Cirillo M, Dimitrov D (2012) On mission-dependent coordination of multiple vehicles under spatial and temporal constraints. In IEEE/RSJ Int’l Conf. on Intelligent Robots and SystemsGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Petrick RPA, Bacchus F (2004) Extending the knowledge-based approach to planning with incomplete information and sensing. In Proc. of 14th Int’l Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Plaku E, Kavraki LE, Vardi MY (2009) Hybrid systems: from verification to falsification by combining motion planning and discrete search. Formal Methods Sys Design 34:157–182CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pnueli A (1977) The temporal logic of programs. In Proc. of 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp 46–57Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Quigley M, Conley K, Gerkey BP, Faust J, Foote T, Leibs J, Wheeler R, Ng AY (2009) ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System. In Proc. of ICRA Workshop on Open Source SoftwareGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Randell DA, Cui Z, Cohn AG (1992) A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In Proc. of Int’l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Renz J, Nebel B ( 2007) Qualitative spatial reasoning using constraint calculi. In Aiello M, Pratt-Hartmann I, van Benthem J (Eds), Handbook of spatial logics, pages 161–215. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Skiadopoulos S, Koubarakis M (2004) Composing cardinal direction relations. Artif Intell 152(2):143–171MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tsang EPK (1993) Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, London and San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vidal T, Fargier H (1999) Handling contingency in temporal constraint networks: from consistency to controllabilities. J Exp Theor Artif Intel 11:23–45CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vilain M, Kautz H, van Beek P (1990) Constraint propagation algorithms for temporal reasoning: A revised report. In D.S. Weld and J. de Kleer, editors, Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, pages 373–381. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang X, Keller JM, Gader P (1997) Using spatial relationships as features in object recognition. In Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing SocietyGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Williams BC, Ingham MD, Chung SH, Elliott PH (2003) Model-based programming of intelligent embedded systems and robotic space explorers. Proc IEEE 91(1):212–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Applied Autonomous Sensor SystemsÖrebro UniversityÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations