Planning under Uncertainty in Linear Time Logic

  • Marta Cialdea Mayer
  • Carla Limongelli
  • Andrea Orlandini
  • Valentina Poggioni
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2829)


The “planning as satisfiability” approach for classical planning establishes a correspondence between planning problems and logical theories, and, consequently, between plans and models. This work proposes a similar framework for contingency planning: considering contingent planning problems where the sources of indeterminism are incomplete knowledge about the initial state, non-inertial fluents and non-deterministic actions, it shows how to encode such problems into Linear Time Logic. Exploiting the semantics of the logic, and the notion of conditioned model introduced in this work, a formal characterization is given of the notion of contingent plan (a plan together with the set of conditions that ensure its executability).


Model Check Planning Problem Linear Temporal Logic Conditioned Model Contingent Plan 
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.
    Bacchus, F., Kabanza, F.: Using temporal logic to control search in a forward chaining planner. In: Proc. of the TIME-1995 International Workshop on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, Melbourne, Florida (April 1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bacchus, F., Kabanza, F.: Planning for temporally extended goals. In: Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1996), pp. 1215–1222. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertoli, P., Cimatti, A., Roveri, M., Traverso, P.: Planning in non deterministic domains under partial observability via symbolic model checking. In: Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI 2001, pp. 473–478 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers  C-35(8), 677–691 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about actions and planning in LTL action theories. In: Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), pp. 593–602 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cerrito, S., Cialdea Mayer, M.: Using linear temporal logic to model and solve planning problems. In: Giunchiglia, F. (ed.) AIMSA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1480, pp. 141–152. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cesta, A., Oddi, A.: DDL.1: a formal description of a constraint representaton language for physical domains. In: Ghallab, M., Milani, A. (eds.) New Direction in AI Planning, pp. 341–352. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cialdea Mayer, M., Limongelli, C.: Linear time logic, conditioned models and planning with incomplete knowledge. In: Egly, U., Fermüller, C. (eds.) TABLEAUX 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2381, pp. 70–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cialdea Mayer, M., Orlandini, A., Balestreri, G., Limongelli, C.: A planner fully based on linear time logic. In: Chien, S., Kambhampati, S., Knoblock, C.A. (eds.) Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS-2000), pp. 347–354. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Currie, K., Tate, A.: O-Plan: the open planning architecture. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 52, 49–86 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giunchiglia, E., Kartha, G.N., Lifschitz, V.: Representing action: Indeterminacy and ramifications. Artificial Intelligence 95(2), 409–438 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Neumann, B. (ed.) 10th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 360–363. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levesque, H.: What is planning in the presence of sensing? In: Proc. of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1996, pp. 1139–1146. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giunchiglia, E., Ferraris, P.: Planning as satisfiability in nondeterministic domains. In: Proc. of the Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000) (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peot, M.A., Smith, D.E.: Conditional nonlinear planning. In: Hendler, J. (ed.) Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, pp. 189–197. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petrick, R.P.A., Bacchus, F.: A knowledge-based approach to planning with incomplete information and sensing. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS-2002) (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pistore, M., Traverso, P.: Planning as model checking for extended goals in non-deterministic domains. In: Proc. IJCAI 2001. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pryor, L., Collins, G.: Planning for contingencies: a decision-based approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4, 287–339 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reiter, R.: The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In: Lifschitz, V. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and mathematical theory of computation: Papers in honor of John McCarthy, pp. 359–380. Academic Press, London (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rintanen, J.: Constructing conditional plans by a theorem-prover. Journal of Artificial Intellingence Research 10, 323–352 (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stephan, B., Biundo, S.: Deduction based refinement planning. In: Drabble, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial IntelligencePlanning Systems (AIPS 1996), pp. 213–220. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Cialdea Mayer
    • 1
  • Carla Limongelli
    • 1
  • Andrea Orlandini
    • 1
  • Valentina Poggioni
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e AutomazioneUniversitá di Roma TreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations