Plan Repair in Hybrid Planning

  • Julien Bidot
  • Bernd Schattenberg
  • Susanne Biundo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5243)


We present a domain-independent approach to plan repair in a formal framework for hybrid planning. It exploits the generation process of the failed plan by retracting decisions that led to the failed plan fragments. They are selectively replaced by suitable alternatives, and the repaired plan is completed by following the previous generation process as close as possible. This way, a stable solution is obtained, i.e. a repair of the failed plan that causes minimal perturbation.


Task Expression Variable Constraint Plan Element Partial Plan Plan Step 
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.
    Biundo, S., Schattenberg, B.: From abstract crisis to concrete relief–a preliminary report on combining state abstraction and HTN planning. In: Proc. of ECP 2001, pp. 157–168 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schattenberg, B., Bidot, J., Biundo, S.: On the construction and evaluation of flexible plan-refinement strategies. In: Hertzberg, J., Beetz, M., Englert, R. (eds.) KI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4667, pp. 367–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schattenberg, B., Weigl, A., Biundo, S.: Hybrid planning using flexible strategies. In: Furbach, U. (ed.) KI 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3698, pp. 258–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fox, M., Gerevini, A., Long, D., Serina, I.: Plan stability: Replanning versus plan repair. In: Proc. of ICAPS 2006, pp. 212–221 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoon, S., Fern, A., Givan, R.: FF-Replan: A baseline for probabilistic planning. In: Proc. of ICAPS 2006, pp. 352–359 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nebel, B., Köhler, J.: Plan reuse versus plan generation: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Artificial Intelligence 76, 427–454 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Warfield, I., Hogg, C., Lee-Urban, S., Muñoz-Avila, H.: Adaptation of hierarchical task network plans. In: FLAIRS 2007, pp. 429–434 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kambhampati, S., Hendler, J.A.: A validation-structure-based theory of plan modification and reuse. Artificial Intelligence 55, 193–258 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drabble, B., Tate, A., Dalton, J.: Repairing plans on-the-fly. In: Proceedings of the NASA Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Space (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Krogt, R., de Weerdt, M.: Plan repair as an extension of planning. In: Proc. ICAPS 2005, pp. 161–170 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Bidot
    • 1
  • Bernd Schattenberg
    • 1
  • Susanne Biundo
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Artificial IntelligenceUlm UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations