Advertisement

A Constraint-Based Encoding for Domain-Independent Temporal Planning

  • Arthur Bit-MonnotEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11008)

Abstract

We present a general constraint-based encoding for domain-independent task planning. Task planning is characterized by causal relationships expressed as conditions and effects of optional actions. Possible actions are typically represented by templates, where each template can be instantiated into a number of primitive actions.

While most previous work for domain-independent task planning has focused on primitive actions in a state-oriented view, our encoding uses a fully lifted representation at the level of action templates. It follows a time-oriented view in the spirit of previous work in constraint-based scheduling.

As a result, the proposed encoding is simple and compact as it grows with the number of actions in a solution plan rather than the number of possible primitive actions. When solved with an SMT solver, we show that the proposed encoding is slightly more efficient than state-of-the-art methods on temporally constrained planning benchmarks while clearly outperforming other fully constraint-based approaches.

References

  1. 1.
    Barták, R., Toropila, D.: Reformulating constraint models for classical planning. In: International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS) (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benton, J., Coles, A., Coles, A.: Temporal planning with preferences and time-dependent continuous costs. In: International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernardini, S., Fagnani, F., Smith, D.E.: Extracting lifted mutual exclusion invariants from temporal planning domains. Artif. Intell. 258, 1–65 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernardini, S., Smith, D.E.: Developing Lfor EUROPA2. In: ICAPS Workshop on Heuristics and Search for Domain-Independent Planning (HSDIP) (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernardini, S., Smith, D.E.: Automatic synthesis of temporal invariants. In: Symposium on Abstraction, Reformulation and Approximation (SARA) (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bit-Monnot, A.: Temporal and hierarchical models for planning and acting in robotics. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Toulouse (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bit-Monnot, A., Smith, D.E., Do, M.B.: Delete-free reachability analysis for temporal and hierarchical planning. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blum, A.L., Furst, M.L.: Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artif. Intell. 90(1–2) (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bryce, D., Gao, S., Musliner, D., Goldman, R.: SMT-based nonlinear PDDL+ Planning. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cashmore, M., Fox, M., Long, D., Magazzeni, D.: A compilation of the full PDDL+ language into SMT. In: International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Fratini, S., Oddi, A.: Developing an end-to-end planning application from a timeline representation framework. In: Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (IAAI) (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chien, S., et al.: ASPEN: automated planning and scheduling for space mission operations. In: International Conference on Space Operations (SpaceOps) (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coles, A., Coles, A., Fox, M., Long, D.: Forward-chaining partial-order planning. In: International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cushing, W., Kambhampati, S., Mausam, Weld, D.S.: When is temporal planning really temporal? In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cushing, W.A.: When is temporal planning really temporal? Ph.D. thesis, Arizona State University (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Do, M.B., Kambhampati, S.: Solving planning-graph by compiling it into CSP. In: International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dvorák, F., Barták, R., Bit-Monnot, A., Ingrand, F., Ghallab, M.: Planning and acting with temporal and hierarchical decomposition models. In: IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edelkamp, S., Hoffmann, J.: PDDL2.2: the language for the classical part of the 4th international planning competition. In: International Planning Competition (IPC-2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eyerich, P., Mattmüller, R., Röger, G.: Using the context-enhanced additive heuristic for temporal and numeric planning. In: Prassler, E., et al. (eds.) Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics (STAR), pp. 49–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25116-0_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: PDDL2.1: an extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 20 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: Modelling mixed discrete-continuous domains for planning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 27 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frank, J., Jónsson, A.: Constraint-based attribute and interval planning. Constraints 8(4) (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ghallab, M., Laruelle, H.: Representation and control in IxTeT, a temporal planner. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS) (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ghallab, M., Nau, D.S., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning: Theory and Practice (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laborie, P., Rogerie, J.: Reasoning with conditional time-intervals. In: International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS) (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laborie, P., Rogerie, J., Shaw, P., Vilím, P.: Reasoning with conditional time-intervals. Part II: an algebraical model for resources. In: International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS) (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lopez, A., Bacchus, F.: Generalizing graphplan by formulating planning as a CSP. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McDermott, D., et al.: PDDL: the Planning Domain Definition Language. Technical report (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Savas, E., Fox, M., Long, D., Magazzeni, D.: Planning using actions with control parameters. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scala, E., Ramirez, M., Haslum, P., Thiebaux, S.: Numeric planning with disjunctive global constraints via SMT. In: International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2016)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith, D.E., Frank, J., Cushing, W.: The ANML language. In: International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vallati, M., Chrpa, L., Grześ, M., McCluskey, T.L., Roberts, M., Sanner, S., Managing Editor: The 2014 international planning competition: progress and trends. AI Mag 36(3) (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vidal, V., Geffner, H.: Branching and pruning: an optimal temporal POCL planner based on constraint programming. Artif. Intell. 170(3) (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vilím, P., Barták, R., Čepek, O.: Extension of O(n log n) filtering algorithms for the unary resource constraint to optional activities. Constraints 10(4) (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GenoaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.University of SassariSassariItaly

Personalised recommendations