Evaluating Robustness of an Acting Framework over Temporally Uncertain Domains

  • Alessandro UmbricoEmail author
  • Amedeo Cesta
  • Marta Cialdea Mayer
  • Andrea Orlandini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11946)


The ultimate goal of automated planning is the execution of plans by an artificial agent in the environment. When interactions and collaboration with humans are considered, robust plan execution requires even more highly flexible and adaptable control capabilities in artificial agents. Therefore, plan-based controllers should effectively deal with exogenous events and environment dynamics in order to perform Planning and Acting in an efficient and effective way. The general approach pursued here conforms to the general idea that Acting is not merely executing plans but it entails a more complex process in which dynamic knowledge processing and plan adaptation are required. To this aim, this paper focuses on Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) and the timeline-based approach which is known to be well suited to robustly deal with uncontrollable dynamics. This paper presents and discusses new interesting results obtained by leveraging the acting capabilities of a novel timeline-based Planning and Acting framework called PLATINUm in a realistic HRC scenario. On the one hand, results show how the variability of the environment can negatively impact the performance and reliability of Acting systems. On the other hand, they show how a proper management of temporal uncertainty strongly improve the Actin reliability.


Planning and Scheduling Execution Temporal uncertainty Plan-based controller 



CNR authors are partially supported by EU under the H2020 SHAREWORK project (GA No. 820807).


  1. 1.
    Barreiro, J., et al.: EUROPA: a platform for AI planning, scheduling, constraint programming, and optimization. In: ICKEPS 2012: the 4th International Competition on Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Fratini, S., Oddi, A.: Developing an end-to-end planning application from a timeline representation framework. In: IAAI-09. Proceedings of the 21st Innovative Application of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Pasadena, CA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cesta, A., Fratini, S., Orlandini, A., Rasconi, R.: Continuous planning and execution with timelines. In: i-SAIRAS-12. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cesta, A., Orlandini, A., Bernardi, G., Umbrico, A.: Towards a planning-based framework for symbiotic human-robot collaboration. In: 21th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA). IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chien, S., Tran, D., Rabideau, G., Schaffer, S., Mandl, D., Frye, S.: Timeline-based space operations scheduling with external constraints. In: ICAPS-10. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chrpa, L., Pinto, J., Ribeiro, M.A., Py, F., Sousa, J., Rajan, K.: On mixed-initiative planning and control for autonomous underwater vehicles. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1685–1690, September 2015Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cialdea Mayer, M., Orlandini, A., Umbrico, A.: Planning and execution with flexible timelines: a formal account. Acta Inf. 53(6–8), 649–680 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Firby, R.J.: An investigation into reactive planning in complex domains. In: Proceedings of the 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA, USA, July 1987, pp. 202–206 (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghallab, M., Nau, D.S., Traverso, P.: The actor’s view of automated planning and acting: a position paper. Artif. Intell. 208, 1–17 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hauskrecht, M., Meuleau, N., Kaelbling, L.P., Dean, T.L., Boutilier, C.: Hierarchical solution of Markov decision processes using macro-actions. In: UAI 1998: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, University of Wisconsin Business School, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 24–26 July 1998, pp. 220–229 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helms, E., Schraft, R.D., Hagele, M.: rob@work: robot assistant in industrial environments. In: Proceedings. 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 399–404 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ingrand, F.F., Chatila, R., Alami, R., Robert, F.: PRS: a high level supervision and control language for autonomous mobile robots. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, pp. 43–49 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ingrand, F., Ghallab, M.: Robotics and artificial intelligence: a perspective on deliberation functions. AI Commun. 27(1), 63–80 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ingrand, F., Ghallab, M.: Deliberation for autonomous robots: a survey. Artif. Intell. 247, 10–44 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lemai, S., Ingrand, F.: Interleaving temporal planning and execution in robotics domains. In: AAAI 2004, pp. 617–622 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maurtua, I., et al.: FourByThree: imagine humans and robots working hand in hand. In: 2016 IEEE 21st International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), pp. 1–8, September 2016Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morris, P.H., Muscettola, N.: Temporal dynamic controllability revisited. Proc. AAAI 2005, 1193–1198 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morris, P.H., Muscettola, N., Vidal, T.: Dynamic control of plans with temporal uncertainty. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 494–502 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muscettola, N.: HSTS: integrating planning and scheduling. In: Zweben, M., Fox, M.S. (eds.) Intelligent Scheduling. Morgan Kauffmann, Burlington (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muscettola, N., Dorais, G.A., Fry, C., Levinson, R., Plaunt, C.: Idea: planning at the core of autonomous reactive agents. In: Proceedings of NASA Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Space (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pellegrinelli, S., Orlandini, A., Pedrocchi, N., Umbrico, A., Tolio, T.: Motion planning and scheduling for human and industrial-robot collaboration. CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 66, 1–4 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Py, F., Rajan, K., McGann, C.: A systematic agent framework for situated autonomous systems. In: AAMAS, pp. 583–590 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rajan, K., Saffiotti, A.: Towards a science of integrated AI and robotics. Artif. Intell. 247, 1–9 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Umbrico, A., Cesta, A., Cialdea Mayer, M., Orlandini, A.: PLATINUm: a new framework for planning and acting. In: Esposito, F., Basili, R., Ferilli, S., Lisi, F.A. (eds.) AI*IA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10640, pp. 498–512. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Umbrico, A., Cesta, A., Mayer, M.C., Orlandini, A.: Integrating resource management and timeline-based planning. In: Twenty-Eighth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Umbrico, A., Orlandini, A., Mayer, M.C.: Enriching a temporal planner with resources and a hierarchy-based heuristic. In: Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Riguzzi, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9336, pp. 410–423. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verma, V., Jonsson, A., Pasareanu, C., Iatauro, M.: Universal-executive and PLEXIL: engine and language for robust spacecraft control and operations. In: Space 2006. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vidal, T., Fargier, H.: Handling contingency in temporal constraint networks: from consistency to controllabilities. JETAI 11(1), 23–45 (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Umbrico
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amedeo Cesta
    • 1
  • Marta Cialdea Mayer
    • 2
  • Andrea Orlandini
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della CognizioneConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheRomeItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di IngegneriaUniversità degli Studi Roma TreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations