Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence

AI*IA 2015 Advances in Artificial Intelligence pp 424-437 | Cite as

Integrating Logic and Constraint Reasoning in a Timeline-Based Planner

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9336)


This paper introduces the ongoing work for a novel domain-independent planning system which takes inspiration from both Constraint Programming (CP) and Logic Programming (LP), flavouring it all with Object Oriented features. We will see a specific customization of our environment to the particular kind of automated planning referred to as timeline-based. By allowing for the interesting ability of solving both planning and scheduling problems in a uniform schema, the resulting system is particularly suitable for complex domains arising from real dynamic scenarios. The paper proposes a resolution algorithm and enhances it with some (static and dynamic) heuristics to help the solving process. The system is tested on different benchmark problems from classical planning domains like the Blocks World to more challenging temporally expressive problems like the Temporal Machine Shop and the Cooking Carbonara problems demonstrating how the new planner, named iLoC, compares with respect to other state-of-the-art planners.


Constraint Programming Resolution Process Temporal Planning Resolution Algorithm Consumable Resource 
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.
    Apt, K.R., Wallace, M.G.: Constraint Logic Programming Using ECL\(^i\)PS\(^e\). Cambridge University Press, New York (2007) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benton, J., Coles, A., Coles, A.: Temporal planning with preferences and time-dependent continuous costs. In: Twenty-Second International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernardini, S., Smith, D.: Developing domain-independent search control for europa2. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Heuristics for Domain-independent Planning at ICAPS 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blum, A., Furst, M.L.: Fast planning through planning graph analysis. In: IJCAI, pp. 1636–1642. Morgan Kaufmann (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonet, B., Geffner, H.: Planning as Heuristic Search. Artificial Intelligence 129(1–2), 5–33 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cashmore, M., Fox, M., Larkworthy, T., Long, D., Magazzeni, D.: AUV mission control via temporal planning. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., De Benedictis, R.: Training for Crisis Decision Making - An Approach Based on Plan Adaptation. Knowledge-Based Systems 58, 98–112 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Fratini, S., Oddi, A.: Developing an end-to-end planning application from a timeline representation framework. In: Proceedings of the 21st Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (IAAI) (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cesta, A., Oddi, A., Smith, S.F.: A Constraint-based Method for Project Scheduling with Time Windows. Journal of Heuristics 8(1), 109–136 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chien, S., Tran, D., Rabideau, G., Schaffer, S., Mandl, D., Frye, S.: Timeline-based space operations scheduling with external constraints. In: Proc. of the 20th Int. Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coles, A.J., Coles, A.I., Fox, M., Long, D.: COLIN: Planning with Continuous Linear Numeric Change. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 44, 1–96 (2012)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cushing, W., Kambhampati, S., Mausam, Weld, D.S.: When is temporal planning really temporal? In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cushing, W., Weld, D.S., Kambhampati, S., Mausam, Talamadupula, K.: Evaluating temporal planning domains. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Benedictis, R., Cesta, A.: Timeline planning in the J-TRE environment. In: Filipe, J., Fred, A. (eds.) ICAART 2012. CCIS, vol. 358, pp. 218–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.S.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 61–124 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frank, J., Jónsson, A.K.: Constraint-Based Attribute and Interval Planning. Constraints 8(4), 339–364 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghallab, M., Laruelle, H.: Representation and control in IxTeT, a temporal planner. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conf. on AI Planning and Scheduling (AIPS) (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoffmann, J.: FF: The Fast-Forward Planning System. AI Magazine 22(3), 57–62 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jonsson, A., Morris, P., Muscettola, N., Rajan, K., Smith, B.: Planning in interplanetary space: theory and practice. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Conf. on AI Planning and Scheduling (AIPS) (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laborie, P.: Algorithms for propagating resource constraints in AI planning and scheduling: existing approaches and new results. Artificial Intelligence 143, 151–188 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maris, F., Régnier, P.: Planification temporellement expressive. TLP-GP, un planificateur pour la résolution de problèmes temporellement expressifs. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle 24(4), 445–464 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muscettola, N.: HSTS: Integrating planning and scheduling. In: Zweben, M. and Fox, M.S. (ed.) Intelligent Scheduling. Morgan Kauffmann (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Py, F., Rajan, K., McGann, C.: A systematic agent framework for situated autonomous systems. In: 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rankooh, M.F., Mahjoob, A., Ghassem-Sani, G.: Using satisfiability for non-optimal temporal planning. In: del Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7519, pp. 176–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robinson, J.A.: A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 12(1), 23–41 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sebastiani, R.: Lazy Satisfiability Modulo Theories. JSAT 3, 141–224 (2007)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simmons, R.G., Younes, H.L.S.: VHPOP: Versatile Heuristic Partial Order Planner. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 20, 405–430 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weld, D.S.: An Introduction to Least Commitment Planning. AI Magazine 15(4), 27–61 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNR, Italian National Research Council, ISTCRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations