Advertisement

Using a Plan Graph with Interaction Estimates for Probabilistic Planning

  • Yolanda E-Martín
  • María D. R-Moreno
  • David E. Smith
Conference paper

Abstract

Many planning and scheduling applications require the ability to deal with uncertainty. Often this uncertainty can be characterized in terms of probability distributions on the initial conditions and on the outcomes of actions. These distributions can be used to guide a planner towards the most likely plan for achieving the goals. This work is focused on developing domain-independent heuristics for probabilistic planning based on this information. The approach is to first search for a low cost deterministic plan using a classical planner. A novel plan graph cost heuristic is used to guide the search towards high probability plans. The resulting plans can be used in a system that handles unexpected outcomes by runtime replanning. The plans can also be incrementally augmented with contingency branches for the most critical action outcomes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Blum and J. Langford. Probabilistic Planning in the Graphplan Framework. In Proceedings of The 5th European Conference on Planning. Durham, UK, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Blum and M. Furst. Fast Planning Through Planning Graph Analysis. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 90, pp: 281-300, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bonet and H. Geffner. Planning as Heuristic Search. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 129, pp: 5-33, 2001.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Bonet and R. Givan. International Probabilistic Planning Competition. http://www.ldc.usb.ve/~bonet/ipc5, 2006.
  5. 5.
    D. Bryce and D. E. Smith. Using Interaction to Compute Better Probability Estimates in Plan Graphs. In Proceedings of The ICAPS-06Workshop on Planning Under Uncertainty and Execution Control for Autonomous Systems. The English Lake District, Cumbria, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Teichteil-Königsbuch and U. Kuter and G. Infantes. Incremental Plan Aggregation for Generating Policies in MDPs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Toronto, Canada, 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. L. S. Younes, M. L. Littman, D. Weissman and J. Asmuth. The First Probabilistic Track of the International Planning Competition. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, pp: 841-887, 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    I. Little and S. Thiébaux. Concurrent Probabilistic Planning in the Graphplan Framework. In Proceedings of ICAPS-06 Workshop on Planning Under Uncertainty and Execution Control for Autonomous Systems. The English Lake District, Cumbria, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. Little and S. Thiébaux. Probabilistic Planning vs Replanning. In Proceedings of ICAPS-07 Workshop on Planning Competitions. Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Baxter and P. L. Bartlett. Direct Gradient-Based Reinforcement Learning: I. Gradient Estimation Algorithms. Technical Report. Australian National University, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Hoffmann and B. Nebel. The FF Planning System: Fast Plan Generation Through Heuristic Search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 14, pp: 253-302, 2001.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O. Buffet and D. Bryce. International Probabilistic Planning Competition. http://ippc-2008.loria.fr/wiki/index.php/Main_Page, 2008.
  13. 13.
    O. Buffet and D. Aberdeen. The Factored Policy Gradient Planner. Proceedings of the 5th International Planning Competition. The English Lake District, Cumbria, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Jimenez, A. Coles and A. Smith. Planning in Probabilistic Domains using a Deterministic Numeric Planner. Proceedings of the 25th Workshop of the UK Planning and Scheduling Special Interest Group. Nottingham, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Yoon, A. Fern and R. Givan. FF-Replan: A Baseline for Probabilistic Planning. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Yoon, A. Fern, R. Givan and S. Kambhampati. Probabilistic Planning via Determinization in Hindsight. Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Yoon, W. Ruml, J. Benton and M. B. Do. Improving Determinization in Hindsight for Online Probabilistic Planning. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. Toronto, Canada, 2010.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Y. E-Martín, M. D. R-Moreno and B. Castaño. PIPSS*: a System based on Temporal Estimates. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Conference of the British Computer Society’s Specialist Group on Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, UK, 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yolanda E-Martín
    • 1
  • María D. R-Moreno
    • 1
  • David E. Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de AutomáticaUniversidad de AlcaláAlcala de HenaresSpain
  2. 2.Intelligent Systems DivisionNASA Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA

Personalised recommendations