Answer Set Planning under Action Costs

  • Thomas Eiter
  • Wolfgang Faber
  • Nicola Leone
  • Gerald Pfeifer
  • Axel Polleres
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2424)


We present \( \mathcal{K}^c \), which extends the declarative planning language \( \mathcal{K} \) by action costs and optimal plans that minimize overall action costs (cheapest plans). As shown, this novel language allows for expressing some nontrivial planning tasks in an elegant way. Furthermore, it flexibly allows for representing planning problems under other optimality criteria as well, such as computing “fastest” plans (with the least number of steps), and refinement combinations of cheap and fast plans. Our experience is encouraging and supports the claim that answer set planning may be a valuable approach to advanced planning systems in which intricate planning tasks can be naturally specified and effectively solved.


Action Cost Weak Constraint Short Plan Executability Condition Plan Length 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. L. Blum and M. L. Furst. Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 90:281–300, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Bonet and H. Geffner. Planning with incomplete information as heuristic search in belief space. In Proc. AIPS’00, pp. 52–61, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Buccafurri, N. Leone, and P. Rullo. Enhancing disjunctive datalog by constraints. IEEE TKDE, 12(5):845–860, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Cimatti and M. Roveri. Conformant planning via symbolic model checking. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 13:305–338, 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Eiter, W. Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer, and A. Polleres. Planning under incomplete knowledge. In: Proc. CL-2000, pp. 807–821, LNCS 1861, Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Eiter, W. Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer, and A. Polleres. A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning: Semantics and complexity. Technical Report INFSYS RR-1843-01-11, Inst. f. Informationssysteme, TUWien, December 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Eiter, W. Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer, and A. Polleres. A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning, II: The DLVK system. Technical Report INFSYS RR-1843-01-12, Inst. f. Informationssysteme, TUWien, December 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Eiter, W. Faber, N. Leone, G. Pfeifer, and A. Polleres. Answer set planning under action costs. Manuscript, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Ephrati, M. E. Pollack, and M. Mihlstein. A cost-directed planner: Preliminary report. In Proc. AAAI-96, pp. 1223–1228. AAAI Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Faber. Disjunctive Datalog with Strong and Weak Constraints: Representational and Computational Issues. Master’s thesis, Inst. f. Informationssysteme, TUWien, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 9:365–385, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Giunchiglia. Planning as satisfiability with expressive action languages: Concurrency, constraints and nondeterminism. In Proc. KR 2000, pp. 657–666. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Giunchiglia and V. Lifschitz. An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proc. AAAI’ 98, pp. 623–630, AAAI Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Haslum and H. Geffner. Admissible heuristics for optimal planning. AIPS’00, pp. 140–149. AAAI Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Kautz and J. P. Walser. State-space planning by integer optimization. In AAAI’99, pp. 526–533. AAAI Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Lee and V. Lifschitz. Additive fluents. In Proc. AAAI 2001 Spring Symposium on Answer Set Programming, pp. 116–123, AAAI Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. Lifschitz and H. Turner. Representing transition systems by logic programs. LPNMR’99, pp. 92–106.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. Lifschitz. Answer set planning. ICLP’99, pp. 23–37. MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. McCain and H. Turner. Satisfiability planning with causal theories. KR’98, pp. 212–223. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Nareyek. Beyond the plan-length criterion. In Local Search for Planning and Scheduling, ECAI 2000 Workshop, LNCS 2148, pp. 55–78. Springer, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Faber
    • 1
  • Nicola Leone
    • 2
  • Gerald Pfeifer
    • 1
  • Axel Polleres
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTUWienWienAustria
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of CalabriaRende (CS)Italy

Personalised recommendations