Task planning in robotics: an empirical comparison of PDDL- and ASP-based systems

Abstract

Robots need task planning algorithms to sequence actions toward accomplishing goals that are impossible through individual actions. Off-the-shelf task planners can be used by intelligent robotics practitioners to solve a variety of planning problems. However, many different planners exist, each with different strengths and weaknesses, and there are no general rules for which planner would be best to apply to a given problem. In this study, we empirically compare the performance of state-of-the-art planners that use either the planning domain description language (PDDL) or answer set programming (ASP) as the underlying action language. PDDL is designed for task planning, and PDDL-based planners are widely used for a variety of planning problems. ASP is designed for knowledge-intensive reasoning, but can also be used to solve task planning problems. Given domain encodings that are as similar as possible, we find that PDDL-based planners perform better on problems with longer solutions, and ASP-based planners are better on tasks with a large number of objects or tasks in which complex reasoning is required to reason about action preconditions and effects. The resulting analysis can inform selection among general-purpose planning systems for particular robot task planning domains.

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

References

  1. Babb J, Lee J, 2015. Action language BC+: preliminary report. Proc 29th AAAI Conf on Artificial Intelligence, p.1424–1430.

  2. Calimeri F, Gebser M, Maratea M, et al., 2016. Design and results of the fifth answer set programming competition. Artif Intell, 231:151–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.09.008

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Cambon S, Alami R, Gravot F, 2009. A hybrid approach to intricate motion, manipulation and task planning. Int J Robot Res, 28(1):104–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364908097884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen XP, Ji JM, Jiang JQ, et al., 2010. Developing high-level cognitive functions for service robots. Proc 9th Int Conf on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.989–996.

  5. Coles A, Coles A, Olaya AG, et al., 2012. A 6survey of the seventh international planning competition. AI Mag, 33(1):83–88. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v33i1.2392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. de la Rosa T, Olaya AG, Borrajo D, 2007. Using cases utility for heuristic planning improvement. Int Conf on Case-Based Reasoning, p.137–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74141-1_10

  7. Erdem E, Patoglu V, 2018. Applications of ASP in robotics. KI-Künstl Intell, 32(2–3):143–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-018-0544-x

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Erdem E, Aker E, Patoglu V, 2012. Answer set programming for collaborative housekeeping robotics: representation, reasoning, and execution. Intell Ser Robot, 5(4):275–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-012-0119-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Erdem E, Gelfond M, Leone N, 2016. Applications of answer set programming. AI Mag, 37(3):53–58. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v37i3.2678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fawcett C, Vallati M, Hutter F, et al., 2014. Improved features for runtime prediction of domain-independent planners. Proc 24th Int Conf on Automated Planning and Scheduling, p.355–359.

  11. Fikes RE, Nilsson NJ, 1971. Strips: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell, 2(3–4):189–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(71)90010-5

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Gebser M, Grote T, Schaub T, 2010. Coala: a compiler from action languages to ASP. European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, p.360–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15675-5_32

  13. Gebser M, Kaminski R, Knecht M, et al., 2011. plasp: a prototype for PDDL-based planning in ASP. In: Delgrande JP, Faber W (Eds.), Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, p.358–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20895-9_41

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gebser M, Kaminski R, Kaufmann B, et al., 2014. Clingo=ASP+control: preliminary report. https://doi.org/arxiv.org/abs/1405.3694

  15. Gelfond M, Kahl Y, 2014. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents the Answer-Set Programming Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gelfond M, Lifschitz V, 1998. Action languages. Electron Trans Artif Intell, 3(6):195–210.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Giunchiglia E, Lee J, Lifschitz V, et al., 2004. Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif Intell, 153(1–2):49–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2002.12.001

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Helmert M, 2006. The fast downward planning system. J Artif Intell Res, 26:191–246. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1705

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Helmert M, Röger G, Karpas E, 2011. Fast downward stone soup: a baseline for building planner portfolios. Int Conf on Automated Planning and Scheduling Workshop on Planning and Learning, p.28–35.

  20. Hoffmann J, 2001. FF: the fast-forward planning system. AI Mag, 22(3):57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Khandelwal P, Zhang SQ, Sinapov J, et al., 2017. BWIBots: a platform for bridging the gap between AI and humanrobot interaction research. Int J Robot Res, 36(5–7):635–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364916688949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee J, Lifschitz V, Yang F, 2013. Action language BC: preliminary report. Proc 23rd Int Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence, p.983–989.

  23. Leyton-Brown K, Nudelman E, Shoham Y, 2002. Learning the empirical hardness of optimization problems: the case of combinatorial auctions. Int Conf on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, p.556–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46135-3_37

  24. Lifschitz V, 1997. Two components of an action language. Ann Math Artif Intell, 21(2–4):305–320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018973620715

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Lifschitz V, 2002. Answer set programming and plan generation. Artif Intell, 138(1–2):39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00186-8

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Lifschitz V, 2008. What is answer set programming? Proc 23rd National Conf on Artificial Intelligence, p.1594–1597.

  27. Lo SY, Zhang S, Stone P, 2018. PETLON: planning efficiently for task-level-optimal navigation. Proc 17th Conf on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.220–228.

  28. McDermott D, 2003. The formal semantics of processes in PDDL. Proc ICAPS Workshop on PDDL, p.101–155.

  29. McDermott D, Ghallab M, Howe A, et al., 1998. PDDL—the planning domain definition language. https://doi.org/www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm/

  30. Miura S, Fukunaga A, 2017. Automatic extraction of axioms for planning. Proc 27th Int Conf on Automated Planning and Scheduling, p.218–227.

  31. Richter S, Westphal M, Helmert M, 2011. Lama 2008 and 2011. Int Planning Competition, p.117–124.

  32. Thiébaux S, Hoffmann J, Nebel B, 2005. In defense of PDDL axioms. Artif Intell, 168(1–2):38–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2005.05.004

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Yang F, Khandelwal P, Leonetti M, et al., 2014. Planning in answer set programming while learning action costs for mobile robots. AAAI Spring Symp on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Robotics, p. 71–78.

  34. Zhang S, Yang F, Khandelwal P, et al., 2015. Mobile robot planning using action language BC with an abstraction hierarchy. Proc 13th Int Conf on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, p. 502–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23264-5_42

Download references

Acknowledgements

A portion of this work has taken place in the Learning Agents Research Group (LARG) at UT Austin. LARG research is supported in part by NSF (IIS-1637736, IIS-1651089, IIS-1724157), ONR (N00014-18-2243), FLI (RFP2-000), Intel, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin. Peter STONE serves on the Board of Directors of Cogitai, Inc. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of Texas at Austin in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shi-qi Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, Y., Zhang, S., Khandelwal, P. et al. Task planning in robotics: an empirical comparison of PDDL- and ASP-based systems. Frontiers Inf Technol Electronic Eng 20, 363–373 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1800514

Download citation

Key words

  • Task planning
  • Robotics
  • Planning domain description language (PDDL)
  • Answer set programming (ASP)

CLC number

  • TP242